Rethinking the War on Drugs
Prohibition and legalization aren't our only choices when it comes to drugs. Proven programs can greatly reduce the harm caused by hard-core users—and reduce our prison population, too.
By MARK A.R. KLEIMAN, JONATHAN P. CAULKINS and ANGELA HAWKEN
WSJ
Current drug policies do much more damage than they need to and much less good than they might, argues UCLA Prof. of Public Policy Mark Kleiman. He talks with WSJ's Gary Rosen about what's wrong with the war on drugs and what could be done to reduce the harm of heavy drug use.
"For every complex problem," H.L. Mencken wrote, "there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong."
That is especially true of drug abuse and addiction. Indeed, the problem is so complex that it has produced not just one clear, simple, wrong solution but two: the "drug war" (prohibition plus massive, undifferentiated enforcement) and proposals for wholesale drug legalization.
Fortunately, these two bad ideas are not our only choices. We could instead take advantage of proven new approaches that can make us safer while greatly reducing the number of Americans behind bars for drug offenses.
Our current drug policies do far more harm than they need to do and far less good than they might, largely because they ignore some basic facts. Treating all "drug abusers" as a single group flies in the face of what is known as Pareto's Law: that for any given activity, 20% of the participants typically account for 80% of the action.
Most users of addictive drugs are not addicts, but a few consume very heavily, and they account for most of the traffic and revenue and most of the drug-related violence and other collateral social damage. If subjected to the right kinds of pressure, however, even most heavy users can and do stop using drugs.
(More here.)
By MARK A.R. KLEIMAN, JONATHAN P. CAULKINS and ANGELA HAWKEN
WSJ
Current drug policies do much more damage than they need to and much less good than they might, argues UCLA Prof. of Public Policy Mark Kleiman. He talks with WSJ's Gary Rosen about what's wrong with the war on drugs and what could be done to reduce the harm of heavy drug use.
"For every complex problem," H.L. Mencken wrote, "there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong."
That is especially true of drug abuse and addiction. Indeed, the problem is so complex that it has produced not just one clear, simple, wrong solution but two: the "drug war" (prohibition plus massive, undifferentiated enforcement) and proposals for wholesale drug legalization.
Fortunately, these two bad ideas are not our only choices. We could instead take advantage of proven new approaches that can make us safer while greatly reducing the number of Americans behind bars for drug offenses.
Our current drug policies do far more harm than they need to do and far less good than they might, largely because they ignore some basic facts. Treating all "drug abusers" as a single group flies in the face of what is known as Pareto's Law: that for any given activity, 20% of the participants typically account for 80% of the action.
Most users of addictive drugs are not addicts, but a few consume very heavily, and they account for most of the traffic and revenue and most of the drug-related violence and other collateral social damage. If subjected to the right kinds of pressure, however, even most heavy users can and do stop using drugs.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home