DRCNet Response to the
Drug Enforcement Administration
Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization
DRCNet Comment:
In this claim, the DEA does the first of its major distortions - the lumping together of all drugs into the same group. Different drugs have different effects and, for some drugs, there is clearly very little association with violence. Marijuana and tobacco are two examples of drugs with little reason to believe that they are connected to violence. The DEA does not mention marijuana in this Claim so we must assume that they agree that this argument would not apply to marijuana in any case.
Even if we accepted the DEA's arguments that drugs, and not prohibition, causes violence, the best way to reduce the crime and violence would be to reduce the drug use. There is no evidence that throwing people in prison is the most effective way to reduce drug use. All the evidence shows that treatment and education are more cost-effective. See, for example, the cost-benefit studies of the Rand Corporation on this point.
DEA Statement |
Response |
| Proponents of legalization contend that if drugs were
legalized, crime and violence would decrease. They believe that it is the illegal nature
of drug production, trafficking and use that fuels crime and violence. They state that
turf wars, gang activity and drug-related crimes are the result of the illegal nature of
the drug trade.
|
If this was really the number one concern of the DEA then
they should be advocating tough prison sentences against alcohol.
Psychoactive Substances and Violence, published by the Department of Justice, Series: Research in Brief, February 1994 The image of the insanely violent drug user has been a common argument for drug prohibition since the earliest days of the laws when the New York Times published front page articles about "Negro Cocaine Fiends, New Southern Menace." It is an image which has been used to justify the cruelest kinds of responses to social problems. It never did have any basis in fact. The Department of Justice's own research clearly shows that the only real connection between illegal drugs and violence is the violence created by the fact that it is illegal. The best example of this is shown by our own history of alcohol Prohibition. The increase in crime and violence associated with alcohol Prohibition was so extreme that many of the people who originally supported Prohibition became convinced that it was a dreadful mistake and campaigned against it. See, for example: Repealing National Prohibition |
| Proponents state that users commit crimes to pay for drugs now because they cannot easily obtain them. If drugs were legal, they say, the enormous profits associated with drugs because of their illegal status would evaporate and, once gone, the black market and criminal activity associated with drugs would also be eliminated. | This is certainly true. One good example of this is the experience in Liverpool, England, when they opened heroin and cocaine maintenance clinics for addicts. Crime was reduced, street drug sales were reduced, and the number of new addicts declined dramatically. See Rx Drugs, The Liverpool Experience. |
| Participants in the Anti-Legalization Forum, who are experts in crime and violence, disagreed strongly with the notion that crime and violence would be reduced if drugs were legalized. It is widely claimed by those advancing the case for legalization that crime is largely committed by drug traffickers protecting their turf. Sadly, it is the experience of many local police officers that crime is committed not only because people want to buy drugs, but more often because people use drugs. There is no denying the fact that drug use changes behavior and exacerbates criminal activity. | This is contradicted by the research of the Dept. of Justice
itself. Their report, Psychoactive Substances and
Violence (Feb. 1994) states: Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. . . . Illegal drugs and violence are linked primarily through drug marketing: disputes among rival distributors, arguments and robberies involving buyers and sellers, (and) property crimes committed to raise drug money. . . . |
| The experts also believe that legalization will lead to increased availability of drugs, which will, in turn, lead to increased use. | The experience of alcohol Prohibition shows that prohibition does not reduce drug use in the long run. See, for example, the charts on alcohol-related problems in The History of Alcohol Prohibition. |
| The use of drugs, especially cocaine, crack, methamphetamine, and PCP, is often associated with violent criminal behavior. There is ample evidence which demonstrates the links between drugs, violence and crime, and the links between a currently legal substance--alcohol--and crime are well documented. Police can attest to the fact that alcohol plays a significant role in domestic violence cases. Drug use would only swell the statistics regarding crime, even if the drugs were legally purchased. | Again, the DEA is clearly contradicted by the research of the
Department of Justice. See Psychoactive Substances
and Violence. It should be noted that marijuana is not included in this statement so the DEA recognizes that this wouldn't be a valid argument for marijuana prohibition in any case. The image of the insanely violent drug user has been a common theme of drug prohibition since the earliest days when the New York Times published front page articles about "Negro Cocaine Fiends, New Southern Menace" (NY Times, February 8, 1914) It is an image which has been used to justify the cruelest kinds of responses to social problems. It never did have any basis in fact. |
| Legalization proponents ignore the fact that the people committing violent crimes are career criminals who will not stop their illegal activities once drugs are legalized; they will instead seek new sources of illicit revenue. | This is the argument that if we "legalized" drugs
then the criminals would just find another line of work. There is nothing else which
offers the opportunity to get rich so easily. By comparison, all the other crimes are hard
work. This is an interesting argument. We must keep drugs illegal because it gives work to criminals who might be doing something more dangerous if we did not. That is, having these people sell drugs is a good thing because it keeps them out of bigger trouble. Relatively speaking then, selling drugs is not so bad as other potential crimes so we should make sure they keep doing it. Of course, then the question becomes: What would happen if we actually did stop the flow of drugs? Would we have to start manufacturing drugs and distributing them through these same criminals just to keep them from doing something worse in society? According to this argument, we are better off if the drug war never does succeed. |
| Criminal activity would not be reduced as a result of drug legalization any more than gangster activity disappeared after the repeal of Prohibition. | Gangster activity did not disappear after Prohibition, but it was tremendously reduced. The problem of gangster activity -- and widespread corruption of law enforcement -- during Prohibition were some of the main reasons for its repeal. See, for example: |
| The group discussed the fallacy that legalizing drugs would eliminate the black market environment which seems to fuel the drug trade and its attendant violence. The existence of a black market is heavily dependent on the parameters set by the legalizers: which drugs would be legal, the potency level of drugs and the age at which legal drugs could be purchased. If drugs were legal for persons over 18, for example, drug traffickers would still target those 17 and younger; if only marijuana were legalized, drug traffickers would continue to traffic in heroin and cocaine. | We effectively eliminated the black market for alcohol. The
existence of a black market is simply a function of how repressive the policies are. The
DEA supports the most repressive policies which must, in turn, produce the largest black
market. It should also be noted that illegal drug dealers sell to children now, and even seek to involve them in the trade. This was also true of alcohol Prohibition and stopped only when alcohol Prohibition was repealed.
No sensible person pretends that any drug policy is going to solve all the problems related to drugs. That is clearly unrealistic. At the same time, there is no reason to undertake policies, such as we have now, which only make the situation worse. Let's face it. The DEA never has had any effective control over the drug markets and they never will. By taking this approach the DEA has insured that only the outlaws will have control of drug sales and distribution. |
| Some facts which help to confirm the observations of the
forum participants may be used in debates:
|
|
|
It is interesting to note the DEA claims that drug users are
violent against others. This particular report, however, says that drug users are more
likely to be victims of violence. That is, the DEA is now blaming the victims for
drug-related violence. What the DEA is alluding to here in the last part of this paragraph is the fact that people are more likely to be victims or homicide than to be perpetrators of homicide while under the influence of cocaine. The same statistic is true of alcohol. What it means is that people who get stoned on anything sometimes do stupid things, such as getting themselves killed. This is even more true of alcohol, but does not make a good reason to throw people in prison for drinking wine or beer. It is true that drug users are often the victims of violence at the hands of non-users. One good example of this is the fact that narcotics agents have killed more people enforcing the marijuana laws than have been killed by marijuana itself. |
| An April, 1994 report titled "Violent Drug-Related
Crime" compiled by the Drug and Crime Data Center and Clearinghouse indicates that
drugs are used by many offenders committing crimes. In 1991, the following percentages of
state prison inmates involved in violent offenses reported that they had used drugs at the
time the offense was committed: |
We called the Drug and Crime Data Center and Clearinghouse
(1-800-666-3332) to try to obtain a copy of this report. They stated that there is no
report which matches this description. A search of their records showed that the report
which most nearly matched this description was "Psychoactive
Substances and Violence" by the US Dept. of Justice, Feb., 1994. We have placed a
copy of this report online to demonstrate that it contradicts nearly everything the DEA
says in this claim. The DEA is clearly not telling the truth. The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics of 1992 lists the breakdown of drug use during commission of violent offenses. The figures shows that, with the exception of robbery, about 75 to 90 percent of all the reported drug use was use of alcohol, not illegal drugs. For robbery, the figures are roughly equal.
People who commit violent crimes are likely to have a lot of problems in their lives, including use of illegal drugs as well as higher rates of use of alcohol and tobacco. That doesn't necessarily mean that one problem is causally related to another. Even if we assumed, as the DEA implies, that all of this was due to illegal drugs, they don't mention comparison data for the number of people who took whatever drug and did not commit a violent crime. Even if we assumed the DEA is right, there is no evidence that the best way to control the problem is to put people in prison. |
DRCNet Response to the Graph:
The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics lists the breakdown of drug use during commission of violent offenses. The figures show that, with the exception of robbery, about 75 to 90 percent of all the reported drug use was use of alcohol, not illegal drugs. For robbery, the figures are roughly equal. A copy of the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics can be obtained by calling 1-800-666-3332.
People who commit crimes are likely to have a lot of problems in their lives, including use of illegal drugs as well as higher rates of use of alcohol and tobacco. That doesn't necessarily mean that one problem is causally related to another.
Even if we assumed, as the DEA implies, that all of this was due to illegal drugs, they don't mention comparison data for the number of people who took whatever drug and did not commit a violent crime.
Even if we assumed the DEA is right, there is no evidence that the best way to control the problem is to put people in prison. Alcohol is the best example of that.
DEA Statement |
Response |
|
This isn't particularly surprising, considering that a large
percentage of arrests are for drug offenses. Even if this wasn't true, the numbers could
be just the reflection of wide spread illegal drug use in society as a whole. The data of the Drug Use Forecasting program is interesting but it does not underscore the crime-drugs link. The data are simply measures of the number of people arrested who had drugs in their system. There is no similar comparative data on people who were not arrested, or did not commit crimes. It is also a long way from showing any causal relationship between drugs and crime except, perhaps, for the fact that people who are stupid enough to get severely drunk or stoned are prone to do stupid things. That would not make it a good idea to have drug prohibition any more than the fact that we arrest people who are drunk and disorderly makes it a good idea to have alcohol prohibition. |
|
The number of inmates who used drugs in the month before the
arrest is as irrelevant as the number who drank a beer during the month before the arrest.
In fact, the DEA has confused this argument by not mentioning the breakdown between
alcohol and the other drugs. Alcohol is clearly the biggest part of that drug use. It should be noted that being under the influence of drugs is a convenient excuse which seems to suit everybody involved in a criminal prosecution. The defendant can plead that he wasn't himself because he was out of his mind on drugs and thereby play on the court's sympathies for leniency. The prosecutors can point to another horrendous drug problem, which suits their interests as well. It should also be noted, again, that there are no comparative figures for the number of people |
| The same study indicates that female inmates were more likely than male inmates to have used drugs in the month before the offense (54% versus 50%) and to have been under the influence at the time of the offense (36% versus 31%). Another finding of the study indicated that among 18-49 year old males, those who had used alcohol, cannabis and cocaine at some point during the past year were ten times more likely to commit a violent act (26.1 percent versus 2.7 percent) than those who used none of the above. | The use of drugs in the previous month is just as irrelevant
as stating that they drank a beer in the previous month. It is worthless as a predictor of
criminal behavior. It should be noted that the DEA fails to distinguish between alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine, all of which have vastly different effects. If they had distinguished this, they would have found the same thing the Dept. of Justice found -- alcohol is the only drug with any real connection to violence. See Psychoactive Substances and Violence. The DEA conveniently ignores the fact that alcohol has the highest association with violence and that cannabis (hemp) has none. The DEA contends that, because someone had a beer up to a year ago, they are potentially violent today. There is no evidence of a causal relationship here at all. Even if there was, there is no evidence that prison would be the best way to control drug use. |
| Mitchell S. Rosenthal, M.D., president of a major New York City drug treatment center, Phoenix House, and chairman of the New York State Advisory Council on Substance Abuse, notes that one of the basic contentions of advocates of legalization is that drug users are essentially normal people. Actually, Dr. Rosenthal said in a speech in 1993, drugs undo the bounds that keep many seemingly normal people on an even keel. "The treatment community does not contend that society is at risk from the behavior of all drug abusers or even the great majority of them," he said. "The case for prohibition rests on the substantial number of abusers who cross the line from permissible self-destruction to become 'driven' people, who are 'out of control' and put others in danger of their risk taking, violence, abuse or HIV infection." | Here again, the DEA states that the vast majority of people
who use illegal drugs are not a threat to society. The argument for prohibition, they say,
rests on the abusers. This is the same as saying that the way to control alcoholism is to prohibit alcohol. That is, we must arrest casual beer drinkers in order to keep people from becoming alcoholics. We tried this already, and it was a clear failure. See The History of Alcohol Prohibition.
The DEA argues that drug users are not "essentially normal people", even while they state that at least two-thirds of them are gainfully employed taxpayers. As for undoing "the bounds that keep many seemingly normal people on an even keel" and all the other problems mentioned, these problems are equally true of alcohol. Yet they do not recommend that we bring back Prohibition of alcohol. Again, the DEA attempts to lump all drugs together, as if they all had the same effects. General statements about "all" drugs are intentionally misleading. |
|
Again, the DEA muddies the waters by failing to draw a
distinction between the drugs. As the Dept. of Justice research shows, alcohol is by far
the greatest part of these statistics. The other drugs are very minor by comparison. It should also be noted that there is no mention here of marijuana, which has no relationship to violent crime. |
|
This is not surprising, considering that a similar percentage of inmates are in there for illegal drug offenses. It is more notable that they often continue their drug use after going to prison. The DEA is not even able to keep drugs out of prisons. |
|
Again, the DEA does not distinguish between the drugs, and there wouldn't be a causal relationship shown with anything, even if they did. The DEA does not provide any comparative statistics for drug use in society at large. |
| This what the DEA did not tell you. Convicted jail inmates under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the current offense.
Percent of convicted jail inmates under the
influence of:
Most Serious (All Alcohol Both Total
Offense Illegal) Only
Drugs Only
Violent Offenses 8.8 30.7 16.1 56.6
Homicide 5.5 49.5 13.7 68.7
Sexual Assault 3.5 21.1 21.1 45.7
Robbery 17.7 18.1 17.3 53.1
Assault 4.5 44.3 9.8 58.7
Other violent 10.0 21.8 27.3 59.2
Property Offenses 18.2 17.9 12.8 48.9
Drug Offenses 28.6 7.3 12.3 48.2
Public-Order 6.4 54.1 9.6 70.1
Offenses
From: Sourcebook on Criminal Justice Statistics, 1992, Table 6.54, page 603. |
|
| Department of Justice statistics indicate a growing number of young arrestees are marijuana smokers. Data from 12 major urban areas showed a sharp jump, from 16.5% in 1992 to 26% in 1993, in teenage arrestees who tested positive for marijuana, the Department said. | That is not surprising, considering the fact that more people
are being arrested for marijuana offenses. See the arrest statistics and other material on
the web sites of National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws and the Marijuana Policy Project. See also the DEA's own chart on marijuana arrest among juveniles. It should also be noted that, while the DEA says that marijuana use is rising, they claim later that Prohibition is Working. |
| And this is the modern, high-test marijuana, about three times (sometimes more) the strength of the 1960s and 1970s weed. | This, again, is mythology. The strongest varieties of marijuana - hashish - have been available for thousands of years. See, for example, History of the Intoxicant Use, from the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. See also the many references on the Hemp/Marijuana Historical Information Page. |
| The marijuana of today is not significantly stronger, on
average, than the 1960s and 1970s weed. See, for example: Cannabis, 1988 - Old Drugs, New Dangers The DEA itself says that the average marijuana of today is not significantly stronger than the marijuana of the 60s and 70s. See |
|
Sources:
DRCNet Comment on the DEA's Chart
The Drugs they did not include:
Drug Type |
Desired Short-Term Effects |
Other Short-Term Effects |
Duration of Acute Effects |
Risk of Dependence |
Alcohol |
Euphoria, excitement, relaxation |
Poor perception of time and distance, impairment of judgment, fine motor skills, and Memory, respiratory depression, nausea, drowsiness, headache, death from overdose |
2 to 4 hours |
Physical - high Psychological - high |
Tobacco |
relaxation |
Nausea, headache, cancer, Central Nervous System damage, death from overdose |
1 to 2 hours |
Physical - high Psychological - high |
Travel back to the DRCNet Response to the DEA Home Page
Travel back to the Table of Contents
Travel back to The Ten Claims