Legalization of illicit drugs: two sides to the coin.

Abstract

In the drugs debate it has become increasingly commonplace to hear voices calling for the decriminalization of their use, including acquisition and possession for personal use. The majority of the Norwegian Penal Code Commission, who last March issued their final draft for a new penal code, supports so doing. Some would like to go further and see the legalization of the soft drugs market, primarily cannabis. In his article, Robin Room (2003) takes a lengthy stride further yet. He asks if we should not take the bull by the horns and legalize the market for all narcotic substances. I agree with Room insofar as a regulated market would be significantly better on a number of points from the present situation where substances change hands illegally. It would make it easier to check the strength and purity of the drugs, the way they are administered and to whom they are sold. At the same time, the Government would be able to increase revenue by imposing duties, much as it does in the case of alcohol and tobacco, and use the money to prevent and treat the harm caused by psychoactive agents. Further benefits could be cited in addition to those Room mentions in his article. Legalization would need the establishment of an international legal drugs market—over and above the already existing system for medical drugs. The people who produce the raw materials—be they opium growers in south-east Asia, cannabis growers in north Africa or coca growers in the Andes—would be earning legal money for their products, and would become more self-supporting. Even more importantly, the illegal, professional, international drugs market would cease to be viable, as would illegal operations in the domestic, national markets. But if legalization is to make life better from a public health point of view, it must not lead to a significant increase in the overall use—and associated harm—of psychoactive agents in the population. If the legalized substances replace tobacco and alcohol, this may well be beneficial from the public health standpoint. There is little evidence to suggest that they per se do more harm than agents not defined as narcotic substances. But if they supplement rather than supplant alcohol and tobacco, the end result could be more, not fewer problems. This is a key argument against Room's views. Many would say we have more than enough on our hands with the problems caused by alcohol and tobacco, without creating more by legalizing presently illegal psychoactive agents. Legalization would likely cause prices to fall and widen availability. Most importantly, however, moral constraints that today limit use would be undermined completely or at least weakened. Many who are put off using drugs today because they are illegal may, in a new regulatory environment, be tempted to do so. Room might counter by saying that it should be possible to regulate consumption in such a way as to rule out increased use, or at least ensure that increased use did not lead to more harm. He appears to have great faith in the power and ability of local communities to enforce regulatory measures. and he may well be right. But in a globalized world of urbanized nations, the ability of neighbourhoods to exercise a restraining influence seems pretty limited. One needs only to look to developments in the Nordic countries to see how outside pressures have gradually undermined traditional national and local alcohol policies, with their high duties and detailed regulation of the market. I miss a discussion of these and similar issues by Room. He paints a convincing picture of the rewards legalization may bring about, but has little to say on the potentially harmful outcomes or on how the regulatory system should be organized and operated. It seems as if he wants to revive the ‘gentle paternalism’ of yesteryear. But would a vision like that stand a chance in our harsh neo-liberal world? Is it not simply a dream to revert to a social democratic welfare state? That said, however, I want to put on record my satisfaction with the article as such. If anything is obvious in this world, it is that drugs policies have failed; new ideas are the order of the day. and the fact that the author of these ideas is Robin Room—one of our most feted international experts in the field—means they cannot be brushed under the carpet as the opinion of an irresponsible demagogue.