Friendly Fire |
Page 1,
2,
3,
4,
5
ANOTHER MODEL
In the face of the problems with our drug policy, discussion of alternatives has been stymied. Frequently the only alternative presented is a full-scale "legalization" of drugs like cocaine and heroin in the same manner as tobacco and alcohol&emdash;a term suggesting widespread and easily availability, easily-evaded regulation, extensive commercial promotion, and serious morbidity and mortality. The necessary discussion of what to do quickly breaks down because the choices presented are mutually awful: continue the status quo or adopt the extreme libertarian position.
But Quakers have dealt with difficult problems of this nature before. I'd like to suggest that one case - that of nuclear weapons - can serve as a useful analog for the development of drug policy. Although this might seem a stretch, consider for a moment what would happen if the elimination of nuclear weapons were undertaken with the coercion and violence promulgated by current drug policy. What would happen if a majority of the U.N. General Assembly were to pass a resolution outlawing nuclear weapons possession, manufacture and distribution, and authorized a global police force to enforce such a law? In the absence of agreement by most of the nuclear weapons states, what would happen? Clearly all monitoring, evaluation and inspection would be impossible, because no nation could admit that it had nuclear weapons. The legal supply of these weapons would be eliminated - but the demand for illegal nuclear weapons would continue not only among the current nuclear powers, but in the aspiring or suspected nuclear powers as well.
Friends understand that the only way to eliminate nuclear weapons is by persuasion, by moral example, by diplomacy, and by obtaining agreement and common consent by concerned parties on goals addressing the elimination of nuclear weapons. While totally opposed to war and the use of nuclear weapons, they nonetheless support systems which regulate, monitor and control the development, testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons. They recognize that if global policy regarding nuclear weapons were completely divorced from the desires and policies of the nations with the technology and will to build and deploy nuclear weapons, there would be no controls. Such a policy would be a fig leaf policy. Friends recognize that regulation is preferable to an unenforceable and unrealistic de jure outlawing of nuclear weapons.
|
|
The transition from a black market to a legal market involves enormous unknowns and should be undertaken gradually and with a willingness to experiment. The enormous variety of drugs would require a sophisticated regulatory scheme, and questions remain to be answered. Can addicts be regulated? Can their intense drive to acquire drugs be channeled into pro-social behaviors? (The experience with many heroin addicts in the United Kingdom, and more recently in Switzerland, suggests that it might be possible.) Can powerful psychedelics be used safely, under regimes of supervision and control? (The Council on Spiritual Practices has published a protocol for organizations that might use such materials in worship, to avoid exploitation.) Can marijuana use be legally regulated without increasing the number of young people using marijuana in a manner that interferes in their lives, their growth and their schooling? Can marijuana be legally regulated without substantial increases in drug addiction and misconduct?
These questions can only be answered by careful experimentation with provisional new laws. But what must be acknowledged is that prohibition has itself been an experiment that not only has failed, but is too expensive to further endure. It operates in a manner that is loathsome to Friends sensibilities. We and other religious communities must engage in the rejection of our current anti-drug policy and work to develop one that reflects our deepest values.