Social Policy and Illicit Drugs

Robert Clancy

[Reprinted from Land & Liberty, March-April, 1973]

NEW YORK'S Governor Rockefeller made a stir when he proposed life-imprisonment with no parole for pushers of illicit drugs. While there was strong criticism of this proposal, opinion polls indicate that the majority of the people -- not only in New York but throughout the US - agree with this measure.

Such a reaction is in line with the concern of most Americans about crime, which is regarded as today's Number One problem. Drugs are closely associated with crime, so no wonder there is much agreement with the Governor. Whether he was playing to the gallery or thought he really had something, he touched a responsive chord.

Yet it must be noted that this Draconian proposal was an about-face from Rockefeller's previous sponsorship of an elaborate rehabilitation programme for drug addicts. This programme, costing many millions of dollars, was a dismal failure, and it looks as though the present stance is a reaction of angry frustration.

Rockefeller and his supporters brush aside objections as to the cost of his punitive measure with rhetoric about the cost to society of not putting drug pushers in prison. Yet the costs cannot be so readily dismissed. Those acquainted with the legal and penal systems point out that already courts and prisons are overburdened and cannot handle even the present load without more funds.

Indeed every new proposal, as well as every drug programme now in effect, involves costs that are staggering and unrealistic. For example, a methadone maintenance and rehabilitation programme for heroin addicts -- with uncertain results -- costs thousands of dollars per year per addict.

The common cry for more police is another thought, less reaction. In addition to the cost to the taxpayer, extra police would probably create extra problems. Big money is involved in the drug traffic and pay-offs to policemen are already notorious. Nearly $100 million of heroin, captured by New York police in the famous "French connection" case, and stored in various police stations, has been stolen and every indication points to an inside job.

Elaborate and expensive law enforcement on federal, state and local levels occasionally cracks open a drug ring. But for every connection or pusher put out of business there are more to step into the ranks -- for the illicit drug traffic has a world-wide and well-organized set-up. The street pusher upon whom the wrath of Rockefeller and company is vented is the last and lowliest link in a vast and powerful chain. The pusher is usually a victimized addict himself.

Even drug education has been a failure. The effort to tell young people about drugs has produced ludicrous "scare" films and programmes. Besides arousing laughter, they also arouse curiosity about drugs, thus leading to more not less drug abuse.

What then can be done? The answer -- disarmingly simple -- was offered by a letter-writer to Time magazine who said that the drug problem is not that drugs are supplied but that people want to take them.

That's it of course -- as long as there is a demand there is bound to be a supply -- but it is no doubt too simple and basic for politicians who are seldom philosophers. If people stopped wanting to take drugs, the whole problem, the whole crime syndicate, would vanish overnight without costing society a penny. It would be pertinent, therefore, to inquire into why so many people are taking drugs.

A comprehensive study[1] was undertaken by the Ford Foundation on the subject of drugs, and among its findings are the following:

Most illicit drugs do not do as much physical harm as is supposed. (Excessive consumption of anything can cause harm; and the psychological state of the drug user must also be considered.) Indeed, the social costs in terms of crime and punishment are far greater.

The very fact of illegality makes illicit drugs attractive (as was alcohol during Prohibition days). Part of the reason too is the youth revolt. Peer pressures among young people are very strong, and interestingly there is currently a swing away from heroin amongst them -- not because of law enforcement or "education" but because young people have found that it produces too many "bad trips" and peer pressure is inducing other youngsters to switch to less harmful drugs.

The Ford Foundation report also conjectures that the desire for "consciousness-expanding" experiences, far from being abnormal, is a universal trait in mankind which our culture does not provide for or encourage and even discourages, thus paving the way to the underground method of drugs.

Disillusion with the American Dream also has much to do with the escape into the fantasy land of drugs. The well-to-do take drugs as a relief from the tensions and pressures of modern living. But the highest incidence of drug abuse is in slums and poverty-ridden urban areas, especially among depressed minorities such as Negroes and Puerto Ricans as well as disaffected youths and "drop-outs" from society. It would appear to be a substitute for the good life which is denied them - a substitute which turns out to be expensive because illegal and so leads to crime.

The matter of legalizing drugs in America, as in Britain[2], is from time to time broached (though drug abuse in Britain has never reached the proportions it has in America). Somehow or other this proposal gets side-tracked, thus provoking the dark suspicion that there is too much investment in the illegality of drugs to make the switch.

But the more basic problem of why so many people take drugs leads us to basic social and economic considerations. It leads us to poverty, the "rat race" and other failures of our superficially "straight" culture. No wonder politicians want to rant against pushers rather than face up to questions that would require some fundamental re-thinking and re-ordering of our society.

REFERENCES

1. Dealing with Drug Abuse, a report to the Ford Foundation by the Drug Abuse Survey Project, Praeger Publishers, 1972.