Pubdate: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 Source: Kansas City Star (MO) Copyright: 2000 The Kansas City Star Contact: 1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, Mo. 64108 Feedback: http://www.kansascity.com/Discussion/ Website: http://www.kcstar.com/ Author: Doug McVay Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n880/a01.html DRUG POLICY Eric A. Voth makes quite clear (6/25, Letters) that he favors forfeiture laws as a tool against drugs. Yet he also shows that he's willing to misuse statistics to make a point. He repeats that old chestnut about illicit drug use costing society more than $100 billion a year. Actually, the study to which he's referring -- "The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992" -- only creates a number that large by factoring in the cost to the criminal-justice system as well as losses from drug-related crimes, many of which would not be committed if we tried regulation rather than prohibition. In fact, according to the study, 60 percent of the cost from drugs is actually the cost of arrest, interdiction and incarceration. Many of the health costs, like AIDS, could be cut in half if we allowed programs like needle exchange. To keep things in perspective: That federal study also says that there was a 50 percent greater cost to society from alcohol use than from all illicit drugs combined. Alcohol inflicts a higher cost than all illicit drugs combined in all but one category: the cost from crimes committed by addicts desperate for a fix. But that's not surprising; we ended alcohol prohibition long ago. Doug McVay, Projects coordinator, Common Sense for Drug Policy Washington, D.C. - --- MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk