Should
Methamphetamine be Legalized?
March 27, 2006
by Marc J. Victor, practicing criminal defense attorney located
in Chandler, Arizona.
PREFACE
If meth was no longer illegal:
1. All dangerous clandestine meth labs in residential neighborhoods
would close;
2. All dangerous street gangs would be out of the meth business;
3. Every dime currently spent on meth prohibition could be spent
on real crime; [27]
4. Meth addicts would have no legal disincentive to seek help;
5. The manufacture of meth would be safe and produce a consistent
product; and
6. Toxic waste from meth production would be safely disposed.
I’m the last guy who ought to argue
for the legalization of meth.[1] As a practicing criminal defense
attorney, I make a good income from defending people who are
charged with drug crimes. If the drug war ended, I would lose
a substantial portion of my income. Additionally, some would
call me a health nut. I go to the gym six times a week and eat
organic foods as often as possible. I wouldn't change my healthy
lifestyle if drugs were legal. I have three little kids. I don’t
want them ever to become drug addicts. I want them to grow up
in a safe world. Indeed, that’s exactly why I want the
drug war to end.
When I was in law school, a wise law
professor of mine taught me that if you are asking the wrong
question, the answer doesn’t matter. In regards to meth,
the question is not whether meth is dangerous and unhealthy.
Over the years, I have represented countless meth users. I have
seen the consequences of meth use up close. I am convinced meth
use will likely ruin the user’s life. It is an extraordinarily
dangerous addictive drug. Few drugs are more addictive or dangerous
than meth.[2] Many of those who oppose legalization of meth
identify the horrors of meth use. I entirely agree with their
assessment of meth’s dangers. Asking whether meth is dangerous
or unhealthy or addictive is not the right question.
The relevant question is whether our
society would be better served if meth was manufactured, distributed,
bought and sold legally. The answer is yes. There are two related
but separate reasons why ending the drug war is critical. First,
a free society requires that the drug war end. I refer to this
argument as the freedom argument. Second, the consequences of
ending the drug war would yield economic and other benefits
which would greatly benefit our society. I refer to this argument
as the consequentialist argument.
Most readers will not be persuaded by
the freedom argument. This fact is disturbing to me. In fact,
many of the issues which plague our world will persist unless
and until people come to respect the principles embodied in
terms such as individual responsibility, self ownership and
freedom. These concepts are what our country was founded upon
and the very reason why America prospered. Now, they are given
mere lip service if they are considered at all. If you shrug
your shoulders and brush off the freedom argument, you should
be ashamed of yourself. Whether you realize it or not, you are
the problem.
THE FREEDOM ARGUMENT
I’m a good dad. I don’t
want my kids using meth. Indeed, I will force my opinion about
not using meth upon my kids. I will prevent them from using
meth by force if necessary.[3] As a dad, I have other policies
as well. For example, my kids are not allowed to ride their
motorized quads without helmets or to ride in the car without
seatbelts. They are not allowed to smoke cigarettes or skydive,
either. However, at some point, my kids will be responsible
to decide for themselves what activities are too dangerous for
them. Both assessing the dangerousness of an activity and determining
how much danger is acceptable will become the exclusive domain
of each of my kids as it pertains to them. Resolving these questions
for one’s self is an important task and responsibility
of any free person.
The question of who gets to make decisions
about the disposition of certain property is central to understanding
freedom. Who gets to decide what activities are too dangerous
for you? Should I get to decide what activities are too dangerous
for you? What about your neighbor? Or the majority? Or the president?
Or Congress? Or some judge? In a free society, the owner of
the property gets to decide how the property is used.[4] Because
you own your body, I assert that you should decide how your
body is used or abused.[5]
In terms of the freedom argument, the
question of legalization of meth poses exactly the same question
as many other issues currently confounding our fellow citizens.
The following non-exhaustive list contains questions which are
each different versions of the same question about how a particular
body is used:
Should people be allowed to eat Big Macs?
Should people be allowed to consume any unhealthy foods at all?
Should people be allowed to play football despite the risk of
serious injury?
Should people be allowed to skydive or rock climb?
Should people be allowed to ride in cars without seatbelts?
Should unprotected sex between consenting adult strangers be
allowed?
Should consenting adults be allowed to have sex in exchange
for money?
Should adults be permitted to ingest marijuana for health reasons?
Should adults be permitted to ingest marijuana for mere personal
pleasure?
Should competent adults be allowed to voluntarily end their
lives if they choose?
Each question begs the initial question
about who gets to decide how a particular human body is used.
Those of us who are pro-freedom would in each case conclude
that the owner of the particular human body in question should
decide how that body is used.[6] The initial issue of who decides
must be resolved first.
Although I would try my best to persuade
others not to use meth, I concede it is not my decision. Among
adults, persuasion is fine, but coercion is not. I will not
force others to live by my assessments of dangers. I respect
the property of other people such that I respect their right
to use their property in ways I vigorously disagree with.[7]
I have no claim on how others use their property unless and
until their activities trespass upon my property.[8]
The freedom argument is much bigger than
the question of whether meth should be legal. It certainly resolves
the question, but it raises larger questions about the very
nature of government. Any legitimate role of government is confined
to protecting rights. Indeed, unless you disagree with the principles
upon which this country was founded and believe government is
the source of rights which may be distributed to us or taken
away, you must agree that government can have no rights other
than the ones we individually delegate to it. Because you have
no right to be my daddy, you have no such right to delegate
to government. Further, because no person individually has any
such right, even the majority of people added together collectively
have no such right. Therefore, when the government acts as my
daddy, it acts wrongfully; even if it acts pursuant to an accurately
counted democratic vote.[9] Although it is perfectly fine for
me to act as a daddy to my kids, the government has no right
to act as a daddy for us.
Some people posit that legalized meth
would send the wrong message to people about using meth. However,
the government’s role is not to send messages to us about
what is right or wrong or good or bad. We don’t need messages
from government. Free people determine for themselves how to
run their lives. I have a right to be a self destructive idiot
if I choose. I own me.
Additionally, the “messages from
government” objection overlooks an important point. The
concepts of legal and illegal are far different from the concepts
of right and wrong or good and bad. Because an activity is legally
permissible does not obligate people to conclude such an activity
is right or good.[10] Merely because the law allows my kids
to insult other kids doesn’t prevent my wife and me from
successfully teaching them not to do it. The unwillingness or
inability of many people to invest the mental acuity to distinguish
between these concepts has contributed to an intellectual feeblemindedness
which is akin to a malignant tumor killing our society. The
“messages from government” objection nourishes that
tumor. We should embrace the concept that we are free to adopt
personal standards of conduct which exceed the minimal threshold
defined by law.
I regret devoting so few words to the
freedom argument. It deserves much more. Many others have far
more eloquently detailed the case for freedom. I hope to live
to witness the day when the freedom argument is accorded the
respect it deserves. I hope this skeletal argument stirs the
interest of those who read it and encourages them to explore
it more fully. The reason our society has been deteriorating
in so many ways is because it has come to accord less and less
respect to the freedoms of others. Winning the freedom argument
is the only way to destroy the cancer that infects our world.
THE CONSEQUENTIALIST ARGUMENT
Some people say the definition of insanity
is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different
results. They are right. The government has been recklessly
ramping up the war on drugs for the past 35 years.[11] Every
year we get tougher laws and tougher sentences. Approximately
1.6 million people are needlessly arrested every year for non-violent
drug offenses. Many more non-violent drug users are simply charged
without arrest. Some of them are students who lose their student
loans and can no longer afford college. Others are people who
hold professional licenses and can no longer work in their professions.
Lives are being needlessly ruined.
The growth of the prison industry has
mushroomed. We now have private companies in the prison business.[12]
This is no surprise when you consider that the United States
claims 4.6% of the world’s population but 22.5% of the
world’s prison population. The DEA has grown from 2,775
employees in 1972 to almost 11,000 employees with 86 foreign
offices in 62 countries in 2005. We have well over two million
people in prison. Since 1980, America ’s general population
has increased 20%, while America ’s prison population
has increased at 20 times that rate, or an astonishing 400%.
America imprisons more people as a percentage of our population
than any other country in the world.[13] This is a sad state
of affairs for any country; especially one which refers to itself
as the land of the free.
Despite the explosive expansion of government
to fight the war on drugs, drug use is more prevalent today
than it was before the war on drugs started. Additionally, drugs
are cheaper, more potent and easier to get than they were in
the early years of the drug war.[14] Throwing more money at
the issue has not resulted in fewer people using drugs. Even
the federal government admits drug use has increased recently
from 6% in 1993 to over 8% in 2003.[15] Despite the frantically
increasing efforts to curb the flow of drugs, high school students
report drugs are still easy to obtain. Almost 90% of twelfth
graders report marijuana is "very easy" or "fairly
easy" to get. Over 47% of twelfth graders say cocaine is
"very easy" or "fairly easy" to get and
more than 32% say heroin is "very easy" or "fairly
easy" to get.[16] I have had clients tell me they became
addicted to drugs when they were in prison. Even in a prison
setting, drugs are prevalent.
Not only are drugs readily available,
some of them have become more dangerous as a result of the drug
war. Looking specifically at meth, the drug war has resulted
in exacerbating the dangers associated with amphetamine use.
While attempting to put the hysteria currently surrounding meth
use in perspective, a columnist named Jack Shafer who writes
for Slate aptly stated the following:
In the mid-1960s, just before the government
declared war on amphetamines, the average user swallowed his
pills, which were of medicinal purity and potency. Snorting
and smoking stimulants was almost unheard of, and very few users
injected intravenously. Today, 40 years later, snorting, smoking,
and injecting methamphetamines of unpredictable potency and
dubious purity has become the norm—with all the dreadful
health consequences. If the current scene illustrates how the
government is winning the war on drugs, I'd hate to see what
losing looks like.
The United States now spends over $50
billion every year to combat the war on drugs.[17] The war on
drugs has been a colossal and unparalleled failure.[18] Despite
my countless conversations with judges, prosecutors, police
officers, DEA agents and drug dealers, it is extraordinarily
rare for me to find anyone who thinks the drug war is working
or will ever work under any circumstances. Indeed, despite my
countless invitations, I have yet to find anyone willing to
debate me publicly on the drug war. Imagine a $50 billion annual
program nobody seems willing to defend.
I understand why nobody wants to debate
me on this issue. I believe the people who work in the justice
system, and truly understand the problems associated with the
drug war, know they would be debating the wrong side of the
issue. I recently argued the case for meth legalization before
a group of judges and prosecutors. I was disappointed during
question time when, despite my provoking and challenging them,
there was only one half-hearted attempt to engage me on the
issues. The case for legalization is overwhelming.
I have had occasion to talk privately
and confidentially with many drug dealers for well over a decade.
I estimate I have represented hundreds of drug dealers. Although
some have simply been users who sell to support their habit,
others have been major players in big drug organizations. I
have found many of them to be bright people who are well aware
that an end to the drug war would immediately put an end to
their businesses. They realize that they could not compete with
large corporations in a legal market. Their ability to make
money by manufacturing, distributing and selling drugs exists
solely because of the drug war. They very much want the war
on drugs to continue and even expand.
Many drug dealers understand that each
large drug bust brings increased profits for them. Although
a drug seizure is bad news for the particular drug dealer involved,
it is wonderful news for all the other drug dealers in the market.
When you see government agents celebrating a large drug seizure,
imagine all the other drug dealers celebrating along with them.
The economics of drug sales are no different
than any other product sold in the market. Every big drug seizure
causes a temporary decrease in the supply of that drug in the
relevant market. However, the drug seizure doesn’t affect
the demand for the drugs. Drug users still want drugs despite
some drug dealer being arrested.[19] When the demand remains
constant and the supply is decreased, prices go up. Imagine
being a drug dealer with a big supply of drugs on hand when
prices suddenly go up. It would be accurate to say that drug
dealers gain the most, through increased profits, when government
agents make a seizure. Increased profits also serve to entice
people to embark on new careers as drug dealers. Drug dealers
love the drug war and do not want it to end. If you support
the drug war, you are on the side of, and act as an unpaid lobbyist
for the plight of the drug dealer.
Some of the drug dealers I have met are
actually very nice, non-violent people. I have represented drug
dealers who do not use drugs at all. They were simply unable
or unwilling to refuse an illegal opportunity to make a lot
of money. However, some of the drug dealers I have met are not
nice people. They sell their drugs with the help of violent
street gangs. Some of these gang members intentionally market
drugs to kids. Because gang members generally can not utilize
the court system to settle disputes over drug sales, nor can
they insure their merchandise against losses, violence and guns
are necessarily involved.
Simply causing meth to be manufactured
illegally is by itself a huge problem. As a result of illegal
meth labs, toxic chemicals used to produce methamphetamine are
often discarded in rivers, fields, and forests. The environmental
damage which occurs results in ever expanding cleanup costs.
The massive growth in costs to clean up such environmental messes
is also illustrative of the failure of current policy. The DEA’s
annual cost for cleanup of clandestine meth laboratories in
the United States has increased steadily from $2 million in
1995 to $23.8 million a mere seven years later in 2002.[20]
A huge collection of well documented facts about the failure
of the current drug policy can be found at www.drugwarfacts.org.
I have heard the saying that those who
do not study history are doomed to repeat it. I suspect some
criminal defense lawyer in the 1920’s incurred wrath from
the establishment for writing an article advocating the legalization
of alcohol. I would bet the nice attorney was attacked by small
thinkers who repeatedly pointed out the harmful attributes of
alcohol.[21]
In case you are unaware, the government
decided in 1919 to amend the United States Constitution to grant
power to Congress to prohibit the manufacture, sale and distribution
of alcohol.[22] Their drug war played out just like ours; a
complete and total disaster. However, it was the best thing
that ever happened to organized crime. The manufacture, sale
and distribution of alcohol were conducted entirely in illegal
and violent markets. Criminals prospered and criminal organizations
grew. A major crime wave began in the 1920s and continually
increased until the end of prohibition in 1933 when it immediately
started to reverse.[23] Prohibition did nothing to curb the
desire of people to use alcohol. Indeed, both the per capita
consumption of alcohol as well as the rate of alcoholism increased
during prohibition.[24] [25] Illegal clandestine stills manufactured
alcohol of inconsistent and unpredictable quality. Law enforcement
was overwhelmed chasing after people involved in alcohol-related
crimes. Does any of this seem familiar to you?
In 1933, they figured it out and repealed
the 18th Amendment.[26] To be fair, we still have people with
substantial alcohol abuse problems. It is a real problem. We
have no shortage of alcohol-related crimes. However, violent
criminal street gangs do not make money from the sale of alcohol.
Although few people “home brew” alcoholic beverages,
people do not brew alcoholic beverages in clandestine labs.
Nobody is offered large cash rewards to transport alcohol. The
Budweiser guy doesn’t fight the Miller guy if they both
happen to arrive at the store at the same time to deliver their
drug. Alcohol companies settle disputes peacefully in court.
Alcoholics can seek help without the fear of criminal prosecutions.
More resources can be devoted to apprehending real thugs because
our justice system is not overloaded with cases of people manufacturing,
distributing or selling alcohol. Isn’t this obviously
a better deal?
We know certain things for sure. If meth was no longer illegal:
1. All dangerous clandestine meth labs in residential neighborhoods
would close;
2. All dangerous street gangs would be out of the meth business;
3. Every dime currently spent on meth prohibition could be spent
on real crime; [27]
4. Meth addicts would have no legal disincentive to seek help;
5. The manufacture of meth would be safe and produce a consistent
product; and
6. Toxic waste from meth production would be safely disposed.
If you support maintaining the war on
drugs, you must necessarily conclude that either I am wrong
about the above six assertions or that the benefits of the drug
war outweigh the obvious benefits contained in the six assertions.
It is difficult for me to imagine one could rationally and honestly
dispute any of the six assertions. They are obvious and virtually
guaranteed to flow from legalization. Therefore, a drug war
supporter is left with the argument that the drug war’s
benefits outweigh the benefits contained in the six assertions.
If this is your position, I challenge you to honestly reweigh
the costs and benefits of each scenario. Unless you put your
finger on the scale because you personally benefit from the
drug war, you must conclude legalization wins.
I do not intend to claim that the above
six assertions are the only benefits of legalization. I list
them together because I find them to be indisputable. There
are other benefits of legalization. I suspect many people would
either not experiment with or stop using meth. Recently, a teenage
meth user confirmed for me that she and her friends started
using meth at least in part because it was illegal. I cannot
recall any friends of mine who didn’t drink alcohol prior
to reaching age 21. Indeed, I consumed more alcohol prior to
reaching age 21 than I do today or since I have been age 21
and one month.
In countries where the alcohol drinking
age is 16, rates of alcohol-related problems appear to be lower
than in the United States, where the drinking age is 21.[28]
The National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse reports
that in 2003, 5.55% of Americans were either alcohol abusing
or alcohol dependent. The Austrian drinking age is 16, and 2.2%
are regarded as alcohol dependent.[29] The German drinking age
is 16, and 3.9% of Germans’ alcohol use is considered
harmful.[30]
Even during prohibition, while rates
of death from alcoholism and cirrhosis were rising in the United
States , they were decreasing during the same time period in
Great Britain , Denmark and Ireland , where alcohol use was
legal.[31] I recently traveled to Amsterdam , where marijuana
use is legal for those over 18 years of age. Marijuana use among
minors in Amsterdam is decreasing. Indeed, the rate of marijuana
use by minors is five times less than what it is in the United
States .[32] Even among adults, the rate of marijuana use in
the United States is twice as high as in the Netherlands , where
use of marijuana is legal.[33] Many of the locals informed me
that marijuana use is simply not exciting and they virtually
don’t ever use it unless people from out of town are visiting.
As you may expect, I had a lot of questions for proprietors
of marijuana coffee shops. I personally witnessed a peaceful
and safe marijuana trade in Amsterdam. Although I wouldn’t
want to live there for unrelated economic reasons, the Netherlands
is a good example of why legalization makes sense.[34]
Tobacco is a far deadlier drug than is
meth. For the year 2000, tobacco is blamed for causing 435,000
deaths.[35] Deaths resulting from the direct or indirect use
of all illegal drugs, including meth, cocaine, OxyContin, heroin
and ecstasy for the same year total 17,000. id. [36] [37] Despite
the fact that tobacco is legal, tobacco use is declining. In
1956, 42% of adults smoked. In 1980, only 33% of Americans smoked.
Additionally, in 1977, 29% of high school seniors smoked. Four
years later, the number of high school seniors who smoke had
fallen to 20%.[38] Education about the dangers of tobacco use
can be credited for the decline of tobacco use, which occurred
while the drug was legally available and without any of the
crime and violence associated with the drug war. The recent
rise in popularity of non-alcoholic beer and low nicotine cigarettes
can be attributed to the same phenomenon. The same beneficial
effects could be applicable to meth and other illegal drugs.
Fortunately, people are slowly waking up to the fact that this
war on drugs is the entirely wrong approach. I am encouraged
by a courageous group of law enforcement and former law enforcement
members who have joined together to form a group entitled Law
Enforcement Against Prohibition or LEAP. A visit to their website
at www.leap.org is well worth the time invested. The over 2,000
law enforcement members of LEAP state the following, “The
membership of LEAP believe to save lives and lower the rates
of disease, crime and addiction, as well as to conserve tax
dollars, we must end drug prohibition.” The members of
LEAP are willing and eager to debate their views with anyone
willing to try to defend the drug war. Also, judges are finally
starting to speak out. See www.judgesagainstthedrugwar.org which
contains judicial opinions critical of the drug war.
Astute observers of the drug war might point out that the $50-$69
billion currently being spent on the drug war annually could
be used to more effectively address the problems associated
with drug abuse. That money could go a long way to facilitate
drug abuse education, treatment and prevention.
Additionally, some may argue that legalization
of drugs could be administered in much the same way alcohol
is currently dealt with. Certainly, people who commit real crimes
should be punished whether or not they were using drugs at the
time. Legalization of drugs does not mean laws must permit unsafe
drug impaired drivers on the roads. Further, employers and other
private citizens would be free to prohibit any and all drug
use at their workplaces or on their property, as they can now
with alcohol. Indeed, what would change with a reasonable scheme
of legalization would be a deletion of much of the crime and
violence only; everything else would remain much the same or
improve. It is a substantially better deal than the ongoing
and worsening disaster we currently endure.
The drug war is un-American. One cannot
simultaneously value freedom and yet support a governmental
scheme which denies the individual his or her sovereignty over
his or her own body. Indeed, control over one’s own body
is the most fundamental of all rights. Worse, the drug war has
effectively birthed countless violent criminal enterprises.
This possibly well intentioned effort has resulted in effectively
creating our 51st state; the state of incarceration. The state’s
population is growing out of control and it is choking the life
out of the other 50 states. Thousands of peaceful Americans
are currently living in cages because of the drug war. The drug
war is lunacy and it must end immediately. As it did for the
revolutionaries who founded our country, the time has come for
us to be bold and courageous. We must speak out against this
horrendous mistake. We have the better case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] I support legalizing all drugs which
are currently illegal.
[2] Incidentally, many say tobacco is
actually more addictive than meth. Isn’t it interesting
that approximately 50% of tobacco users have quit using tobacco
in the past ten years all during a time while the drug was completely
legal.
[3] My wife is a good mom. She supports
my ban on meth use for our kids.
[4] I acknowledge this concept is extraordinarily
radical and barely comprehensible to some. For a better understanding,
find someone who refers to himself or herself as a “libertarian”
and talk to that person.
[5] If you assert no claim of ownership
to your body, I may be interested in laying a claim. However,
I would want to see you first.
[6] In case you are confused, the correct
answer to each question is yes.
[7] Can you honestly say this? If not,
you should think about what possibly justifies you in controlling
another’s property. You should also not complain when
others seek to control your property. It’s a freedom thing.
[8] As a finer point, when their activities
trespass upon my property, they are now using my property without
my permission. Said more precisely, others are free to use their
property in any way they please with no restrictions. A trespass
is simply the acknowledgement they are wrongfully using another’s
property.
[9] Democracy and freedom are not the
same concepts. Freedom is when the owner of the property decides
how the property is used. Democracy is when a majority of non-owners
decide how an owner must use his or her property. Democracy
and freedom are often incompatible.
[10] The opposite is also true for some
acts which are currently illegal.
[11] In 1969, Nixon spent $65 million
on the drug war. In 1982, Reagan spent $1.65 billion on the
drug war. Bush’s budget for 2006 requests $12.4 billion
dollars which is a 2.2% increase over his 2005 budget.
[12] I have nothing against private prisons.
Indeed, the private sector should be administering prisons.
My point here is simply to note that private entrepreneurs recognize
the huge potential to prosper in this growth industry.
[13] 732 people out of every 100,000
live in government cages as of 2005.
[14] These are facts asserted by current
and former law enforcement officers. See www.leap,org
[15] Drug Use Trends and National Survey
on Drug Use and Health, White House Office of Drug Control Policy
(2004).
[16] Monitoring the Future, National
Results on Adolescent Drug Abuse, Overview of Key Findings 1999,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Page 48.
[17] Some former police officers claim the current annual amount
spent is sixty nine billion dollars per year. See www.leap.org
[18] Some may say George W. Bush’s
Iraqi policy is a failure of such magnitude that it rivals the
drug war for the biggest failure attributable to a governmental
effort. I admit it is a tough call.
[19] Most drug addicts don’t watch
the evening news or read the newspapers. They are not generally
aware of drug busts or any other news for that matter
[20] National Drug Threat Assessment 2004 ( Johnstown , P.A.:
National Drug Intelligence Center April 2004), p. 18.
[21] Yes, I am aware that alcohol abuse
is harmful. My point here is that they were focusing on the
wrong question.
[22] It is worth noting that at least
they acknowledged Congress otherwise had no such power by amending
the Constitution rather than pretending the Commerce Clause
includes such a power. I’m still searching for that amendment
which grants power to Congress to run today’s drug war.
[23] Pandiani, John A., The Crime Control
Corps: An Invisible New Deal Program 348-358 (British Journal
of Sociology, 33 September 1982).
[24] Cases of alcoholism at New York
’s hospitals increased over 100% during prohibition from
1919 to 1924. The National Prohibition Law: Hearing Before the
Subcommittee of the Commission on the Judiciary, 69th Congress
148 (1926).
[25] During prohibition from 1921 to
1929, per capita consumption of beer increased 463%, wine increased
100% and consumption of spirits increased 520%. Warburton, Clark,
The Economic Results of Prohibition 174 (Columbia University
Press, 1932).
[26] At least their politicians had enough
spine to admit their mistakes. With very few exceptions, today’s
jellyfish politician is too worried about what the general public
thinks to take a real leadership stand on this issue.
[27] By “real crime” I mean
when people trespass on the rights of others by force or fraud.
[28] I realize such comparisons are difficult for a variety
of reasons. However, the numbers are different enough that it
appears a reasonably certain conclusion can be drawn.
[29] Die Haufigkeit von Alkoholismus
und Problemtrinken in Osterreich, Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift,
110 (10), 1998, pp. 356-363.
[30] Reprasentativerhebung zum Gebrauch psychoaktiver Substanzen
bei Erwachsenen in Deutschland, 2000 Sucht, Sonderheft 1, (2001).
[31] Warburton, Clark , The Economic
Results of Prohibition 78-90 (Columbia University Press, 1932).
[32] Untitled editorial in The Lancet, Volume 346, Number 8985,
(November 11, 1995) p. 1241. See also, Netherlands Ministry
of Health, Welfare and Sport, Drug Policy in the Netherlands
Progress Report September 1997-September 1999, (The Hague: Ministry
of Health, Welfare and Sport, November 1999), p. 7.
[33] Netherlands Ministry of Health,
Welfare and Sport, Drug Policy in the Netherlands : Progress
Report September 1997-September 1999, (The Hague: Ministry of
Health, Welfare and Sport, November 1999), pp. 7-8.
[34] For more stats and documentation about how legal marijuana
has resulted in less marijuana use as well as other overall
societal benefits, see www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm
[35] Journal of the American Medical
Association, Jan. 19, 2005 , Vol. 293, No. 3, p. 298.
[36] This number includes deaths attributed to illegal drugs
resulting from suicide, homicide, motor-vehicle injury, HIV
infection, pneumonia, violence, mental illness, and hepatitis.
[37] The number of confirmed deaths attributed
solely to a marijuana overdose in the history of the world is
zero. See, Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A.
Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science
Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research,
Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
1999), available on the web at www.nap.edu/html/marimed/; and
US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration,
End
Call
Leslie Davis - 612/529-5253
|
