Mr. Tamasi wants us to believe that legalization of all drugs "would not reduce crime and associated criminal justice costs." He claims that more crimes are committed by persons under the influence of drugs than by persons who are otherwise unimpaired. This may be true. But it is the overall cost of the War on Drugs - over two hundred and fifty billion dollars as of 1996 - which we are facing. It is the cost of maintaining forces in south and central America, of tying up police officers and judges and courts all over the USA, the endless expense of keeping people in jails for years and years because of mandatory sentencing for being apprehended with as little as one joint of marijuana on one's person - these are "associated criminal justice costs" and they are only the beginning of what this War is costing us. And if we look at his assertion that legalization would not reduce crime, it is necessary to weigh evidence that drug wars for territory, and that crimes committed to obtain money for purchasing drugs, account for a very substantial percentage of all serious crimes committed. Statistics can be manipulated to support either side of this question, but the staggering amounts of money being spent can be totaled without difficulty, while determining who did what under what sort of "high" is a matter of supposition.
Mr. Tamasi believes that prohibition inhibits drug use. He is unquestionably correct, to the extent that many individuals, knowing that drug use is illegal, will do without. What he does not wish to admit is that many other individuals, and especially young people, do not like to be told what they may, or may not, do, and as a result will deliberately experiment with that which is forbidden. There is a trade-off here. Where the balance lies, it is difficult to say.
There is another matter which too many persons, opposed to the legalization of drugs, refuse to face. There are those of us who, after sampling a first beer, will become alcoholics. And there are others who, after a first experience with illegal drugs, will become addicts. But a majority of individuals can try many things, appraise the results - the pros and the cons, the pleasures and the risks - and remain in control. The idea that any taste of forbidden pleasure must lead to immediate addiction is completely erroneous.
At one point in his article, Mr. Tamasi says that I used the fact that alcohol and nicotine are responsible for more ills than all illegal drugs together, to support my case for legalizing all drugs. This is unfair. I was simply pointing out the fact that there is some special brand of hypocrisy involved when a major menace is accepted and made legal, but what may well be a lesser evil is kept illegal. Dual standards raise doubts.
Legalization brings up the matter of use by persons considered to be "under age." This is a crucial problem, but with legalization comes the possibility of imposing certain controls. Just as it is a criminal offense to sell alcohol or nicotine to those under a given age, it can be made illegal to sell, or give, any drug to young people. And here, I must say, it is the criminal justice system that is woefully lax in establishing effective deterrents for those who are found guilty of such crimes and those who, under the influence of any drug, are found responsible for loss or injury to others. We need a return to the attitude that responsibility for our acts rests with us alone. Blame should not be shifted. Excuses should not be made.
One of the advantages in legalizing drugs is that the products could be rigorously controlled. There would no longer be any reason for anyone to die of overdose or infection. Records would be available showing each person's use. Also, the cost of producing almost any drug is minimal. This would mean that profits could be kept so low that no black market would have a chance.
The central fact of the matter, which Mr. Tamasi does not discuss, is that all controlled substances are now available just about anywhere anyone can wish to find them. The only difference between having them legal, or illegal, is that their cost, while illegal, is so high that almost anyone could be tempted to get involved in their sale, distribution and/or production. Keeping them illegal, does keep them from getting into some hands, but the multi-billion-dollar cost of doing so is already prohibitive, and there may be other ways to attack the problem.
Unfortunately, Mr. Tamasi did not make any reference to the alternatives I suggested. We are on the same side of the question of controlling drug use; we both want to do everything possible to see that addiction is limited and that treatment can be provided for those who need it. Mr. Tamasi is a person of character and intelligence and has had years of experience in observing and treating addiction. If the vast sums of money being wasted on attempted interdiction, and on the apprehension and trying and incarcerating, of drug offenders, could be directed, instead, toward the education and treatment of all those involved, and potentially to be involved, we might be able to accomplish a great deal more than we have to date. Mr. Tamasi should be the first to see the merit in this approach.