Against the legalization of heroin

Abstract

The case against legalization rests on the empirical premise that use would increase in the absence of control laws. Everything I know about human nature and the effects of drugs supports this. People use drugs because they are pleasurable, and because they are an effective antidote to anxiety, frustration, and feelings of inadequacy. Were drugs legal, they would be socially destigmatized and they would become easier to acquire, cheaper to purchase, and safer to use. Given the genuine psychological benefits of use, we can be sure that it would increase were drugs legalized. The predictable increase in use alone, however, does not justify laws, nor does it provide a convincing argument against legalization. For one thing, drinking might decrease as a result of increased use, which would be a good effect if drinking is more harmful. Even if increased use would not have this indirect benefit, laws impose substantial burdens. They impose risks of criminal liability on those tempted to deal drugs, especially young men in poor urban neighborhoods; they create incentives for gang membership and gang violence; they cost money in law enforcement; they result in outlaw groups abroad having more money and influence than they otherwise would, with dangerous political consequences; they increase the risk of overdose and other health risks commonly associated with use; and, of course, they make an enjoyable recreational activity illegal. Given these burdens, the benefits of keeping use down must be substantial in order to justify control. What are these benefits? This depends on the in question. Here I focus on heroin. (1) The strongest argument against heroin legalization, in my opinion, is its predictable effect on the life prospects of young people in poor communities. A person who is ill-educated, whose skills are not in demand, who does not feel admired or respected by society, who has no clear path to social success or financial security, is likely to feel self-doubt and frustration in large measure. Such feelings can be relieved by heroin. Given the intense pleasure and temporary relief that heroin provides, many of those who try it in any community, rich or poor, are likely to use it again and some are likely to develop a habit. Why would this be bad? Habitual heroin use typically lowers a person's expectations of himself and decreases his concern with what others expect of him; it typically weakens a person's motivation to accomplish things and to meet his responsibilities to others. A general increase in the availability of heroin would therefore increase the risk to children of inadequate parenting, and would make it more likely that young persons disposed to will not do what they need to do in order to get a decent education, develop good work habits, develop relationships with mentors, and so on. By drug abuse I mean use that has negative consequences for the user or others that are sufficiently bad to make this use either imprudent or irresponsible. Poor people are not uniquely susceptible to abuse. Life is difficult, especially in adolescence. Heroin brings pleasure and relief. We can therefore predict that adolescents in every economic group would begin using it regularly if it were legalized. Some, perhaps most, would mature out of a habit, but during crucial stages of a person's mental and emotional development, whether by oneself or one's parents, will typically have lasting consequences that are difficult to correct. The greater availability of heroin might distract some young people from problem drinking, but the impact of heroin on a person's development is arguably more severe because the degree of indifference it produces toward tasks and mentors is arguably greater. If it is, then the impact of legalization on poor communities is especially worrisome because an increase in there would further clog already narrow opportunities for achievement and success. …