"Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (World Health Organization). As health comprises our well-being, maintaining said well-being is inherently in society’s best interest. Both the United Nations and the World Health Organization agree, “Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples…by the provision of adequate health and social measures” (World Health Organization). The latter makes pertinent sense, as the United States government has a direct impact on the healthcare that we, her citizens, receive. As a society, we place the highest value on health, due to its sheer importance in our lives. Therefore, any government misstep concerning measures that impact our health, assumes significant societal consequences.
An integral component of our health concerns the government’s regulation of psychotropic and toxic substances that could potentially detriment society. Following the 1960s, the perceived impact of drugs in our society led the government to impose strict regulations. In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, thereby sanctioning our right to use certain substances, while outright prohibiting the use of others (Frontline). In doing so, the government deemed which drugs are conducive to health and which are harmful, dictating right from wrong. Shortly after, in 1971, President Nixon commenced the “War on Drugs” policy agenda, condemning drug abuse as “public enemy Number One.”
This examination lends evidence towards an unfortunate, inevitable truth: the government’s current drug enforcement policies contribute to the overall drug problem, plaguing society. A report by the New York County Lawyer’s Association confers that the War on Drugs may be counterproductive, even harmful to society: Current prohibitive drug policies, based on supply and demand reduction, have failed, permitting the illegal drug trade to exist as a lucrative black market, while contributing to an overall increase in violence and societal harm. By maintaining the world’s largest illicit drug market, America fuels domestic and foreign criminal regimes, whom use violent, terroristic means of conducting business (Debusmann). Effectively, the policies and enforcement agencies charged with protecting society from “enemy Number One” have instead contributed to its detriment. Therefore, drug policy reform is imperative in order to improve societal well-being: following a harm-reduction agenda, the legalization and regulation of substances defined by the Controlled Substances Act is a necessary measure in achieving a healthy society.
Many oppose the implementation of harm-reduction policies, claiming that their goal is to legalize harmful substances, which will only exacerbate the drug problem. They believe that “legalization and permissive drug policies will lead to a greater availability of dangerous drugs…” undermining societal well-being (Drug Free America Foundation). Furthermore, networks like the International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy deplore the notion of harm-reduction strategies, attributing them to the “deceptive” idea that drugs can be used safely and responsibly. These opponents envision a drug-free society, which is contraindicated with harm-reduction measures that assume drug use will forever pervade society (Drug Free America Foundation). Accordingly, their overall basis for contention is a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of drugs and their role in society.
Drugs are a common theme in society and have a significant history of regulation, most notably exemplified by two of America’s oldest vices: alcohol and tobacco. Government regulation of alcohol was outlined in the Bill of Rights, with the 18th and 21st Amendments prohibiting and legalizing the drug, respectively. In 2009, over 50% of Americans aged 12 or older reported being current alcohol drinkers, while 27.7% of the population in the same age group reported current tobacco usage (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). Clearly, our society permits drug use, based on the percentages of people using alcohol and tobacco, indicated above as the most prevalent drugs in society. Additionally, with illicit drug use contributed by 8.6% of the population, this suggests that over 80% of the population over used drugs in 2009 (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). Extrapolating these data lends a more realistic depiction of drug use in our society. Therefore, opponents of drug regulation reform, believing in the sanctity of a drug-free society, are unwarranted in their disputes, as they stem from an unrealistic perspective.
Other opponents of drug legalization and regulation claim that the current War on Drugs is valid in reducing the societal harms. In order to combat drug abuse in society, the government spawned the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 1973 (Frontline). The DEA and its proponents tout that enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act is efficacious in controlling society’s drug problem. They claim to thwart the illicit drug market by means of the United States’ Criminal and Justice system, eradicating the deleterious effects of drugs on society (Drug Enforcement Administration). The DEA mandates the Controlled Substances Act by categorizing all government-regulated substances into one of five schedules, based on the following criteria: potential for abuse, accepted medical use, and effects of abuse (Drug Enforcement Administration). Drugs that are classified Schedule I (e.g., marijuana, LSD, and ecstasy) are effectively prohibited from use, due to the supposed detriment to health and society; whereas, drugs scheduled as II-V (e.g., OxyContin, Adderall, and Xanax) are deemed acceptable for use with doctor recommendation, due to their purported benefits outweighing the risks (Drug Enforcement Administration).
However, despite the DEA’s persistent efforts, the damaging effects of drugs continue to permeate society, while the costs intensify. Statistics capturing the economic deficits resulting from the United States’ drug war paint a grim picture: Over the past 40 years, the War on Drugs has cost an estimated $1 trillion; in 2010 alone, the U.S. federal government allocated over $15 billion to the drug-fighting agenda (Associated Press). Moreover, in 2009, arrests for drug abuse violations exceeded the number of arrests for any other offense (Federal Bureau of Investigation), contributing to the $121 billion spent in the past 40 years, solely on the incarceration of non-violent drug abusers (Associated Press). The latter compounds the deficit, directly contributing to the costs of maintaining the world’s largest prison population (Debusmann). The criminalization of drug abuse has morphed a disease into a crime, despite evidence that incarceration is correlated with increased incidence of drug abuse, fueling an unhealthy society (Associated Press). In 1998, the annual cost of alcohol abuse alone was an estimated $184.6 billion (Harwood), and tobacco costs society an annual $96 billion, with an additional $5 billion due to second-hand exposure (Guilfoyle). Reform is therefore imperative; drugs are an inherent part of society and their current prohibitive regulation promotes more harm than good.
Using a harm-reduction approach, drugs can be regulated in a synergistic manner, thereby, promoting a healthy society. In general, these policies aim to minimize the harms associated with personal drug use, while treating abuse pragmatically (Marlatt). Under a harm-reduction agenda, the legalization of drugs does not imply a lack of regulation; rather, each drug must be regulated according to its individual properties. Currently, needle exchange programs for heroin users serve as an example of harm reduction in action, providing users clean needles to inhibit the spread of HIV and other communicable diseases (Marlatt). By applying harm-reduction, rather than prohibitive, measures to each drug, we can mitigate the associated societal detriments. In Switzerland, heroin abuse and dependence is mitigated through heroin maintenance programs, where heroin is administered, instead of methadone. They found that a heroin-based treatment for heroin addicts is more efficacious than a methadone-based treatment, in promoting patient recruitment, retention, and compliance (Uchtenhagen). Applying these logical policies to all substances of abuse ensures the maximum reduction of societal harms, increasing overall well-being.
Additionally, the legalization of drugs improves the health of society through enhancing funds for research, education, and treatment. A recent report from the CATO Institute outlined the budgetary impact of ending drug prohibition, with a whopping $41.3 billion in annual savings, attributed to the costs of drug enforcement. Moreover, drugs found safe for recreational use could yield yearly tax revenues of $46.7 billion, collectively (Miron and Waldock). The impact of this supplementary revenue is extremely significant, suggesting that harm-reduction policies are self-sustainable, if promoted by the funds that they generate. Amidst our nation’s multi-trillion-dollar deficit, a plan to promote societal well-being, bolstered by its ability to generate revenue, is extremely pragmatic.
In conclusion, our current system for deterring drug use is severely flawed, marked by the perception that drug abuse is criminal, and not merely disordered. The impact of the War on Drugs is deleterious to society, compounded by its mounting trillion-dollar expenditure and promotion of criminal violence. The solution to society’s drug problem, which is only enhanced by its current militaristic tactics, is to reform the inherently flawed policies. Accordingly, establishing a harm-reduction agenda would mitigate the consequences of drugs via legalization and pragmatic regulation, which directly contribute to a healthy society. In order to alleviate the burden of drugs on society, we must reevaluate our system of prohibition and recognize that drug policies have a holistic impact. Currently, we are not doing justice to the importance that we place on achieving a healthy society; pragmatic reform provides the means to end the War on Drugs, disintegrate the black market effect, boost the economy, and fundamentally, uphold societal well-being.
Works Cited
Associated Press. "After 40 years, $1 trillion, US War on Drugs has failed to meet any of its goals." 13 May 2010. Fox News. 20 November 2011 .
Debusmann, Bernd. "Einstein, insanity and the war on drugs." 3 December 2008. Reuters. 19 November 2011 .
Drug Enforcement Administration. Controlled Substance Schedules. 2011. 19 November 2011 .
—. DEA Mission Statement. 2011. 18 November 2011 .
—. Drugs of Abuse. Resource Guide. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2011.
Drug Free America Foundation. Drug Free America Foundation Mission Statement. 2007. 18 November 2011 .
—. Harm Promotion. 2007. 18 November 2011 .
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports. Statistics. The United States Federal Government. Washington D.C.: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2009.
Frontline. Thirty Years of America's Drug War, a Chronology. 2011. PBS. 18 November 2011 .
Guilfoyle, Jessica. "Toll of Tobacco in the United States of America." 16 September 2011. Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids. 1 December 2011 .
Harwood, Henrick. Updating Estimates of the Economic Costs of Alcohol Abuse in the United States. Estimate Analysis. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Health, 1998.
International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy. "Statement on so-called 'harm reduction' policies." Brussels, 2005.
Marlatt, G. Alan. "Highlights of Harm Reduction: A Personal Report from the First National Harm Reduction Conference in the United States." Marlatt, G. Alan. Harm Reduction: Pragmatic Strategies for Managing High-Risk Behaviors. New York: The Guilford Press, 1998. 3-26.
Miron, Jeffrey A. and Katherine Waldock. The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition. Study. CATO Institute. Washington D.C.: CATO Institute, 2010.
New York County Lawyers' Association. Report and Recommendations of the Drug Policy Task Force. New York: The Drug Policy Foundation, 2006.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Summary of National Findings. Office of Applied Studies. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009.
Uchtenhagen, Ambros. "Heroin Assisted Treatment for Opiate Addicts - The Swiss Experience." February 2002. Parliament of Canada. 1 December 2011 .
World Health Organization. "Constitution of the World Health Organization." Basic Documents. October 2006.
