[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 16 (Wednesday, February 23, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                            LEGALIZING DRUGS

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 23, 1994

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, February 23, 1994 into the Congressional Record:

                            Legalizing Drugs

       In recent high school convocations I have held in southern 
     Indiana, the question of whether drugs should be legalized is 
     almost always asked. It is a timely question. Late last year, 
     when Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders suggested that the idea 
     of legalizing drugs should be studied, her remarks drew harsh 
     criticism from the public, law enforcement officials, and 
     President Clinton. I do not support legalization.
       Arguments for Legalization: Drug legalization has over the 
     years attracted proponents from all points on the political 
     spectrum. But even they do not always agree on answers to 
     serious questions about where to draw the line: which drugs 
     would be legal, who would administer the dosage of drugs, 
     what quantities each individual would get, would the 
     government establish tax-supported facilities to sell drugs, 
     where would the supply of drugs come from, how much would 
     drugs cost, how would underage people be dealt with? Some 
     proponents favor selling drugs in the same manner as tobacco 
     and alcohol, with restrictions only on sales to minors and 
     licensing requirements for retailers. Most proponents of 
     legalization, though, favor additional regulations, such as 
     monitoring drug production carefully, including health 
     warnings on drug labels, and allowing only certain 
     establishments, such as pharmacies, to sell drugs. Some favor 
     assessing a substantial tax on drugs offered for sale, 
     limiting the quantity of drugs a person could buy, legalizing 
     only certain drugs, or only legalizing drugs prescribed as 
     part of treatment and detoxification programs for addicts.
       Proponents' primary argument is that drug legalization 
     would reduce violent crime. They often liken the current 
     drug-related crime problem to the Prohibition era, when 
     ruthless gangsters operated an illicit trade in alcohol. If 
     the black market for drugs were eliminated, their price would 
     be drastically reduced, and drug users would no longer have 
     to resort to crime to support their habit. Furthermore, drug 
     pushers would be put out of business, thereby ending their 
     violent turf wars.
       Second, legalization advocates believe that the public 
     health would improve. Money currently devoted to drug 
     enforcement activities could be used instead for treatment 
     and prevention. Since drug addicts would no longer fear 
     prosecution, they might be more apt to seek treatment. 
     Intravenous drug users would have access to clean needles, 
     and thus be less likely to spread the virus which causes 
     AIDS. Since the government would be able to closely monitor 
     the production of drugs, drug deaths that are currently 
     caused by ingestion of impure or too potent drugs would be 
     prevented.
       Third, proponents argue that a punitive approach toward 
     drug use is a futile and inefficient use of law enforcement 
     resources. Drugs will always flow into this country to some 
     extent, no matter how great an effort is made to stop them, 
     and drug dealers will become increasingly violent and 
     sophisticated in response to more vigorous law enforcement. 
     Were drugs no longer illegal, the intense pressure on the 
     courts, the prison system and police would be abated.
       Arguments Against Legalization: Those who oppose drug 
     legalization, like me, argue that while the cost of fighting 
     drugs is very high, the cost of not doing so is higher.
       First, there is general agreement that drug use will 
     increase under legalization. Open availability of drugs would 
     compound already mammoth social problems in the country. It 
     would increase drug abuse and addiction, perhaps to 
     catastrophic levels, by making highly dangerous substances 
     cheaper, purer, and more widely available. Many Americans 
     currently do not use drugs precisely because they are 
     illegal. If drugs were made legal, a whole new class of 
     potential addicts would be opened up. It is entirely possible 
     that the new treatment facilities made available because of 
     drug legalization would see a substantial number of people 
     who would never have become addicted were drugs still 
     illegal. The most apt analogy to Prohibition may be that 
     after its repeal, alcohol consumption increased by 350%. 
     Furthermore, the threat posed to the public health by 
     illegal drugs does not even approach that presented by 
     currently legal drugs. Tobacco and alcohol kill over 
     500,000 Americans every year, and exact a huge toll on 
     society through lost productivity, rising health costs, 
     chronic disease and premature death. What is to make us 
     think that use of other drugs will not follow the same 
     trend if made legal?
       Second, legalization would fail to eliminate drug crime, 
     except by defining it away. Even if drugs were cheaper, some 
     drug addicts would not be able to afford all the drugs they 
     want to would continue to rob and steal to support their 
     habit. Moreover, some drug users would be unhappy with the 
     regulations that are placed on legal drug sales. If drugs 
     were only available in certain quantities, to certain people, 
     or in certain varieties, the black market, and its attendant 
     violence would continue to exist.
       Third, legalization would send precisely the wrong message 
     to our young people. Drug legalization would undermine any 
     educational effort to persuade young people about the harmful 
     effects of drugs. It would shift social approval toward drug 
     use and away from abstinence, and suggest that the government 
     is morally indifferent to drugs.
       Assessment: Most of us would probably agree that our 
     nation's current anti-drug efforts are not working as well as 
     we would like, but I do not believe that legalization is the 
     answer to America's drug problem. Health concerns and 
     increasingly negative social attitudes about drugs are 
     probable reasons for declining drug use. We must build on 
     those gains. Fortunately, more 85% of American voters believe 
     that drugs should be illegal.
       I support strengthened efforts to eradicate foreign drug 
     crops, interdict the flow of drugs into this country, and 
     lock up drug dealers. But I also believe we must put much 
     more effort into reducing demand for drugs, through 
     prevention, education and treatment. Most of the answers to 
     American drug problems lie here at home. We most not legalize 
     drugs and concede defeat to those whose goal is to ruin 
     others' lives.

                          ____________________