Pubdate: Sat, 18 Feb 2012
Source: Morning Sentinel (Waterville, ME)
Copyright: 2012 MaineToday Media, Inc.
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/tLMIEnz1
Website: http://www.onlinesentinel.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1474
Author: M.D. Harmon
Note: M.D. Harmon is a retired journalist and a freelance writer.

LEGALIZATION OF OUTLAW DRUGS NOT LIKELY, BUT LET'S DEBATE OPENLY

It seemed strange that aging crooner Tony Bennett's first comment 
about the death of Whitney Houston was a plea for the legalization of 
now-outlawed drugs.

His point deserves some consideration, however, in spite of the fact 
that no illegal drugs appear to have been involved in Houston's death.

Although she admitted to illegal drug use in the past, and had been 
treated for it, this time she appears to have overdosed on powerful 
prescription drugs.

With the autopsy results still weeks away, that account may change as 
the investigation proceeds, but this is a sad story no matter what develops.

Houston's death at the far-too-young age of 48 recalls previous pop 
star overdoses, including Michael Jackson's and Amy Winehouse's, with 
commentators once again asking:

Why would a person with such appeal -- and at one time a $100 million 
fortune -- abuse drugs, especially if it apparently killed her? And 
why weren't those who cared for her able to halt such a 
self-destructive path before its predictable finale?

I don't have the answers, and it may be that there are no 
satisfactory ones. Celebrities' lives are not the flights of glamour 
and grandeur that the fan magazines often make them out to be. People 
are people, strong in some ways and fragile in others, and those ways 
are different for all of us.

But this isn't really about Houston, but Bennett. Here's what he said 
to a crowd at the same Beverly Hills hotel where Houston's body was 
found: "I'd like to have every gentleman and lady in this room commit 
themselves to get our government to legalize drugs," he said. "So 
they have to get it from a doctor, not just some gangsters that just 
sell it under the table."

Addiction specialists, however, said they couldn't understand 
Bennett's point, not only because it didn't seem to apply to Houston, 
but also because Jackson died from a prescription drug overdose and 
Winehouse from alcohol poisoning.

Bennett's comments weren't all that strange, however, when you 
consider that a campaign to legalize some now currently prohibited 
drugs for "recreational" purposes has persisted for a long time and 
displays no signs of going away.

The list begins with marijuana, but it doesn't stop there. Cocaine, 
heroin, oxycontin, even methamphetamines, all have their supporters. 
They argue that the current "war on drugs" is too expensive; makes 
criminals of people who are no danger to society; has created some 
symptoms of a police state in America; and has led to social unrest 
and violence not only in this country but also in Mexico, Colombia, 
Bolivia, Afghanistan and other nations producing drugs for a 
worldwide market -- in which the United States remains the biggest customer.

It's not all coming from the political left, either. The staunchly 
conservative magazine National Review has argued for years for the 
decriminalization of marijuana, and libertarian sources, including 
the movement's flagship magazine, Reason, and GOP presidential 
candidate Ron Paul, a doctor, promote the relaxation of many drug prohibitions.

The anti-drug campaign is indeed expensive. Estimates of its total 
costs, including law enforcement, judicial proceedings, incarceration 
and treatment are at least $15 billion annually and some place them 
at more than $40 billion.

Those arguments carry some weight, but there are also weighty 
arguments against legalization.

One is that the removal of drug prohibitions also will minimize the 
social stigma associated with their use. It seems logical that when 
drugs are available as a commodity, they will be ubiquitous, widely 
available not only to their intended adult users but also to children 
and others who should never take them.

Comparisons to the failed experiment of Prohibition are countered 
with the view that society is burdened enough by the problems created 
by alcohol, a drug that has been present in all cultures for 
millennia and still remains hedged about with legal barriers to its 
general use.

Expanding the legality of dozens of other mind-altering substances 
will have an impact that isn't easily comprehended, but will have far 
more undesirable results than beneficial ones. Certainly Houston's 
death proves that making drugs legal is not the same thing as making 
them less dangerous.

Is there a middle ground? Some say that even absent full 
legalization, redirecting spending toward mandatory long-term 
treatment instead of imprisonment (with the latter as an option if 
treatment is ineffective, resisted or refused) is a better long-term 
social option.

Similar programs have been tried in nations such as Sweden and 
produced reductions in overall drug use, reports say.

It will do no harm to have the legalization debate more openly, and 
that may have been Bennett's point. But there are deeply harmful 
effects from the abuse of any "social" drug, including alcohol, and 
we shouldn't change our laws and attitudes until we're certain we can 
protect the most vulnerable among us.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom