The American Dilemma and How We Can Fix It


With MLB’s announcement yesterday of thirteen player suspensions, once again the issue of illegal drug usage is on our radar screen.  It’s not quite three weeks since Cory Monteith died of a self-inflicted heroin overdose.  How many others lacking his high profile have died as a result of drug abuse in that same period is unknown as their deaths don’t make the news.

Obviously the PED’s that apparently enjoy widespread usage among professional athletes don’t, as far as we know, have the same potential for killing their users.  But as long as they are illegal and the powers that be within baseball wield their considerable authority to censure offenders, they do have a negative effect.  They destroy the dreams of millions of kids who look to these athletes as their idols.

It’s interesting to note that, if we continue to regulate which drugs are legal and which are not – in my view an unwise position – that MLB has taken a far more effective approach to dealing with the problem than does our Federal government under the aegis of the DEA.  MLB attacked the problem at the consumption level – while the DEA attacks the problem at the production level.

Whether or not you accept my argument that all drugs should be de-criminalized and made available through regulated dispensaries, I believe we can all agree that there is one reason that people manufacture drugs.  There is a lot of money in it.

Why do people use them?  That is probably a far more complex problem.  Why would a thirty-one year old such as Monteith with an established career and a bright future risk that all for a fix?  But finding the reason that he or any other drug user engages in his habit is less important than acknowledging that they do.

We found with Prohibition that we cannot eliminate the source (alcohol) simply because we have made it illegal.  And we found that despite its illegality, people who wanted a drink found ways to fulfill their desires.  Why we do not apply what we should have learned from that lesson to cocaine or heroin or marijuana or any other mind-altering drug is confusing.

We love reading stories about the fact that the latest cartel “El Jefe” has been apprehended – as though that will make any difference at all.  Returning to my original thesis that where there is a lot of money involved, there will always be someone willing, if not anxious to step in and replace a fallen “leader”.  In fact, many of these former leaders were sent to an early retirement at the hands of their successors.

Pouring money into the sinkhole of trying to eliminate the production of illegal drugs at its source is about as fruitful as trying to empty the Pacific Ocean by using a ladle.  After years of conducting the losing “War On Drugs” we should have by now realized that.

The CDC reported that in 2010 there were 37,792 deaths attributable to illegal drug abuse.  That compares to 25,440 deaths that were attributable to mis-use of alcohol.  Alcohol has been regulated for nearly a century and I suspect has far wider usage than illegal drugs.  I would be willing to bet that the number of people who at least occasionally enjoy a hard drink or a beer is five hundred times the number of people who shoot heroin or snort cocaine.

Perhaps that multiplier of five hundred that I pulled out of thin air is far too high.  Let’s adjust it down to something that may seem more reasonable to you – ten.  But even at that ridiculously low level – it would suggest that we should be seeing well over one quarter million annual deaths due to demon rum.  The government’s own statistics say that assumption is false.

Why then do we resist the libertarian concept of decriminalizing drug usage?  There are a number of answers to that question.

First, we believe that drug usage leads to drug dependency which leads to ruined lives.  That is probably an argument with which I would agree.  But isn’t that what happens now?  And the fact that these drugs can only be obtained from criminals exposes the user to additional danger than he or she would experience by purchasing these same drugs from a dispensary.

Second, we are protecting our children from becoming drug abusers.  That is a laudable goal but is patently untrue.  A pusher doesn’t care if you’re at death’s door or twelve years old – as long as you have the money to buy your fix.  A dispensary would be able to weed out those who have not attained a majority (and the presumed ability to make an intelligent decision regarding whether they wanted to purchase a drug).  And the sad truth is that a lot of our kids are getting their first highs by raiding their parents’ stash of pain killers (which are, of course, legally prescribed drugs).

Third, drugs are “de facto” bad.  We should not give the perception of endorsing them by legalizing them.  That is simply a value judgment.  However, as in the case of alcohol, not everyone shares that opinion.  Does a person have the right to impose his values on everyone else?  If so, you must be enamored with the present administration.

The benefits of decriminalizing drugs are also several.

First, the street value of the commodity would fall in price.  This might be the most effective way of actually putting the cartels out of business.  Furthermore, by regulating the distribution through dispensaries we could tax the product and test it for “safety”.  Many of those who die from drug overdoses are people who purchased “tainted” products.

Second, the gangs that are now the distributors for drugs and who are responsible for multiple murders every year, would also be put out of business.  Of the 31,500 plus murders that were the result of gunshots in 2010, well over half of those were believed to be related to drug transactions and rivalries between two gangs of drug pushers.

Third, we would be able to identify current drug users and develop rehabilitation programs to assist these users which they would have to attend in order to continue receiving their ongoing distributions.  Those drug users seldom receive any sort of assistance under our present arrangement.

Those MLB players who received suspensions yesterday were taking those substances in order to improve their value as a negotiable commodity.  Once again, money is at the core of their actions.  We would be naïve to believe that when players are already making multi-millions of dollars a year that they will not be able to get access to any sorts of drugs they want – PED’s or otherwise.

It’s really long past time that we had a mature debate on our drug policies.  For myself, I hope that I never feel so low that I contemplate turning to them for comfort.

If we look at those baseball players and other pro athletes who have turned to drugs to enhance their performance, we should honestly ask ourselves one question.  In our demand as consumer/spectators for more thrilling games and better performances, aren’t we fans really the pushers?


Comments on: "SUPPLY AND DEMAND" (11)

  1. And in my mind the biggest reason to legalize (beyond the fact that an adult should be able to buy his choice of poison legally); shutting down the drug war would take a lot of government expenses and excuses to invade our privacy off the table. Not that they would do the right thing and lay off those people, unless forced by Congress suddenly growing enough spine to defund DEA and its ancillaries. Ah, well, it’s a nice dream (of freedom)

  2. Suppose you had the power to divide the world into three separate living areas relating to drug and/or alcohol use. The first containing no users, the second occasional users, and the third addicted users. Each space would have all the basic resources necessary to sustain life (i.e., sufficient water, tillable soil, etc). And if each space was begun from scratch, after ten years (more or less) which of them do you suppose would be the most advanced in terms of creature comfort, health, scientific advancement, etc….and thus likely to be considered by an objective observer the most desirable area for locating future participants (i.e., children)? Would not that area also likely become the envy of the other two? And what if there was no way for those others to gain entrance to that most-desired area without first meeting its basic requirement (i.e., non-user/user/addict) for living there?

    So…if you had that kind of power, what would you do? 😉

    • You pose an interesting theoretical question.

      The first issue is that having a particular power doesn’t necessarily mean that one has to employ it. I have the power to speed when I operate my vehicle but I don’t. I have the power to swat the flies that occasionally settle on me but I don’t. Why, therefore. would I feel entitled to use the power that you cite – assuming that it was within my abilities?

      But assuming someone else had the power and chose to employ it …

      If, in addition to having arable land and the basic necessities, those who lived in the heavy user/addict region had unlimited access to their drug or alcohol of choice and those in the moderate area had access as well, my guess is that those in the first region would probably over indulge themselves in their habit and be the least productive. I think it would be a toss up in terms of which of the other two regions would build a better, more harmonious society.

      As to your final question about envy – of course, there would be envy. It is precisely the issue that is now being raised by HUD about making certain that upscale neighborhoods allow those who are less economically advantaged be admitted as fellow homeowners. Of course, the illogic of HUD fails to recognize that if we wanted to truly integrate this country, they should be encouraging those in those upscale areas to move into the slums. That might prove to be a hard sell – even among those with the most liberal mindset.

  3. Another challenge to our modern thinking.

  4. […] Supply and Demand ( […]

  5. […] Supply and Demand ( […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: