[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 15, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                E X T E N S I O N   O F   R E M A R K S


                  DRUG LEGALIZATION/THE NATURE OF EVIL

                                 ______


                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 15, 1994

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, over the next few months the American 
public is going to become much more aware of the people and 
organizations who are behind the movement promoting the legalization of 
drugs. The worst of these organizations is the sinister Drug Policy 
Foundation and the wacky but dangerous National Organization for Reform 
of Marijuana Laws.
  On the other side of this issue are major profamily organizations 
which have sprung up to alert the American public to the dangers of 
legalization and the network and organizations backing the movement.
  All Americans should be thankful to the thoughtful work done by Drug 
Watch International and the International Drug Strategy Institute.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would insert an excellent work done by 
the chairman of the International Drug Strategy Institute, Dr. Voth, 
which outlines the arguments against drug legalization.

                Arguments Against Legalization of Drugs

                       (Eric A. Voth, M.D. FACP)

       1. Legalization of Drugs will decrease the profit of 
     selling drugs and therefore drive dealers out of the 
     market.--Most drugs are already cheap. Crack may sell for $5 
     per rock. Because drugs are addictive, they create their own 
     market. The addict will simply increase his usage to meet the 
     finances available. Furthermore, drug abuse does not fit into 
     a simple supply/demand economic model. Most of the several 
     thousand addicts I have treated relate that cost and 
     availability of finances are the major limiting factors to 
     their drug abuse. If they had more money or if drugs were 
     cheaper they would use more drugs. Since drugs create their 
     own demand, dealers would stay in business by profiting from 
     sale of more drugs; only perhaps cheaper drugs. If drugs were 
     distributed by ``legitimate'' businesses, they would be 
     priced to be enticing. If priced too high, they would drive 
     users back to the black market.
       2. Crime would decrease if drugs were legalized.--The 
     addict who resorts to crime will still resort to crime to pay 
     for his habit. The only way to achieve decreased crime would 
     be to supply the addict with his drug of choice. This has 
     failed dismally in England and in the U.S. in the form of 
     methadone clinics. Again, drug use would increase. Holdups 
     have increased over 60% and shootings have increase 40% in 
     Holland since the softening of drug laws. That country is now 
     strengthening its drug laws. About 75% of felonies are drug 
     related, and these are largely related to crime while 
     intoxicated and acquisition of funds to buy drugs.
       3. Legalization works in other countries.--Incorrect. The 
     only form of legalization which exists in England has been in 
     regard to heroin for known addicts. In the Netherlands, one 
     of the repercussions of legalization has been addicts 
     flocking in from other countries. One must also seriously 
     question that country's viability in the world. With 
     marijuana in Alaska besides the obvious fallout of drug 
     addiction, more people became unemployable because of 
     inability to pass tests by employers.
       4. Prohibition failed for alcohol and it is failing for 
     drug abuse.--In fact prohibition was a response to the 
     tremendous problems that were seen with alcohol at the turn 
     of the century. It did work. Since Prohibition was repealed, 
     alcohol related deaths have steadily increased. One of the 
     reasons that there was a problem with prohibition is that 
     alcohol had enjoyed a prior legal status and then was given 
     an illegal status.
       5. The government should reap some profit by taxation of 
     drugs.--As we have seen, the government is slow to tax drugs 
     such as alcohol and tobacco. If legal, there would no doubt 
     be lobbying efforts to limit taxation of drugs. Further, 
     taxation would immediately create a black market for non-
     taxed drugs. With current amount of usage, estimates of the 
     cost of alcohol and drug abuse range from 170 to 300 billion 
     dollars per year. Could our society bear the increased cost 
     of drug treatment alone on top of our staggering national 
     debt? Taxation initiatives in Holland were defeated by the 
     drug lobby.
       6. Legalization would allow restrictions to be placed on 
     quality control.--Once again, this only creates another black 
     market. This also raises the question as to how drugs would 
     be legalized and distributed. Would all drugs be legalized, 
     who would produce them and distribute, what would happen to 
     distributors with illegal ties, what concentrations would be 
     allowed, etc.?
       7. It is a personal right whether or not to use drugs.--
     Although the use of an intoxicant drug is only an individual 
     choice, it is certainly not a constitutional, legal, or moral 
     right. Any behavior which affects society as well as others 
     so adversely must be regulated by society. Drug addiction 
     costs society in loss of life, spread of disease such as 
     AIDS, treatment of addicts, and involvement of innocent 
     parties such as with DUI related deaths, and crime related to 
     the acquisition of drugs. The use of drugs is no more a 
     personal right than any destructive, self centered behavior, 
     and many of those who use drugs (especially young people) 
     lack the judgment to adequately assess the risks involved. 
     This is particularly true in light of the efforts of 
     organizations such as NORML to downplay the risks and 
     consequences of drug abuse.
       8. Enforcement of drug laws is full of racial bias and does 
     not work. By reducing or eliminating mandatory sentences the 
     prison system can be unburdened. Why are we jailing people 
     with a disease?--In fact, legalization would be markedly 
     racist. Not only is drug use more prevalent in minorities 
     than whites, but with legalization drug use would climb and 
     disproportionately affect minorities. No one wants to see 
     first time low level users spend tremendous time in jail, but 
     this is virtually not happening in the U.S. unless it is with 
     regard to dealing. In that regard the individual is taking 
     known risks.
       We jail people with all kinds of diseases; heart disease, 
     diabetes, psychiatric disorders, etc. if their behavior 
     deviates from social norms and if they put society at risk. 
     Having addiction is not license to break the law.
       9. We should provide pain relief and anti-nausea treatment 
     for cancer patients and HIV patients.--This recent position 
     statement is clearly aimed at the legalization of drugs and 
     far more fulfills the self-interest of the pro-legalization 
     movement than ever beginning to address the needs of cancer 
     patients. There are numerous effective agents on the market 
     for all of these problems. Moreover, if marijuana were 
     legalized, the pro-legalization lobby would no doubt drop 
     their thinly veiled concern for cancer and HIV patients once 
     their self-interest was fulfilled.
       10. Illegal drugs are less of a problem than alcohol and 
     tobacco.--This is true so far, but it is actually a 
     compelling reason to maintain the illegal status of our 
     illegal drugs. Why add more problems to the current ones seen 
     with alcohol and tobacco?
       11. We can dramatically reduce mortality and morbidity by 
     redirecting America's drug strategy to reduce the use of 
     tobacco and alcohol.--Indeed, we need to broaden the effort 
     to decrease the serious effects of alcohol and tobacco. These 
     drugs serve as excellent modes of the consequences of 
     legalizing drugs. The current prevention movement has 
     addressed these drugs, but much of the pro-legalization based 
     literature does not support complete abstinence; rather it 
     supports ``responsible use'' which among especially youth is 
     irresponsible and dangerous.
       12. We should abandon enforcement and address the drug 
     problem through a prevention and treatment approach.--The 
     most effective approach to drug abuse is a three-legged 
     balanced approach which enlists prevention, intervention 
     (enforcement), and rehabilitation. Enforcement has a 
     substantial preventative effect and certainly reduces the 
     availability of drugs. It keeps the user and the dealer 
     constantly off balance and concerned about arrest. The other 
     two areas certainly need to be expanded, and equally controls 
     need to be instituted to assure high quality treatment and 
     prevention programs.
       13. What are some of the claims made about the beneficial 
     effects of legalized hemp?--These are examples of the claims: 
     Hemp for ecology, hemp makes cleaner air, hemp builds soil, 
     hemp helps children, hemp for cancer, hemp for eyes, hemp for 
     rheumatism, hemp relieves stress. The pro-drug forces even 
     mix the rescheduling of marijuana into the issue.
       14. Why not use hemp as an alternative source for energy 
     conservation and for lumber products?--The movement behind 
     the ``ecological'' uses of marijuana stems from the same 
     people who pressed for medical uses of THC and later leaf 
     marijuana. Their technique is to identify hot topics which 
     stir public emotion and to dovetail with these. What is more 
     timely than concern over the environment and energy problems. 
     There are some basic flaws in their theories. While they 
     contend that hemp makes cleaner air by processing carbon 
     dioxide (one of the major ``greenhouse effect'' chemicals), 
     they support using hemp to break down to create alcohol to 
     mix with gasoline for energy. Fossil fuel pollution remains a 
     problem with or without hemp. They overlook the major impact 
     on the lumber industry that would result from moving heavily 
     to another form of pulp for paper. There are already efforts 
     to define alternate forms of pulp from legal sources.
       While asserting potential ecological benefits, supporters 
     refer to ``health'' benefits which are identical to the 
     supposed benefits of cannabis. This is the same technique 
     that NORML has always used. Furthermore, even IF there were 
     pulp and energy uses, this does not justify ingestion or use 
     for intoxication. If an attempt were made at producing forms 
     of marijuana for hemp that was sterile and therefore unable 
     to produce intoxication, it would be a matter of time before 
     NORML pushed again for general legalization. Do not forget 
     that this new movement stems from NORML! The further reading 
     that is recommended in the hemp literature is all pro-
     legalization literature written by major proponents of 
     legalization.
       15. The war on drugs has failed and we should abandon it.--
     The pro-drug lobby uses this propaganda as a morale breaker. 
     We have only fought a limited war to date yet there have been 
     successes. Although heavy use of drugs has increased, the 
     casual or more recreational use has declined 33% from 1985-
     1988. The war on drugs needs to be expanded on all fronts.

                          ____________________