|
|
CLAIM I:
Crime, Violence and Drug Use Go Hand-In-Hand.
DRCNet Comment:
In this claim, the DEA does the first of its major distortions - the lumping together
of all drugs into the same group. Different drugs have different effects and, for some
drugs, there is clearly very little association with violence. Marijuana and tobacco are
two examples of drugs with little reason to believe that they are connected to violence.
The DEA does not mention marijuana in this Claim so we must assume that they agree that
this argument would not apply to marijuana in any case.
Even if we accepted the DEA's arguments that drugs, and not prohibition, causes
violence, the best way to reduce the crime and violence would be to reduce the drug use.
There is no evidence that throwing people in prison is the most effective way to reduce
drug use. All the evidence shows that treatment and education are more cost-effective.
See, for example, the cost-benefit studies of the Rand
Corporation on this point.
DEA Statement |
Response |
| Proponents of legalization contend that if drugs were
legalized, crime and violence would decrease. They believe that it is the illegal nature
of drug production, trafficking and use that fuels crime and violence. They state that
turf wars, gang activity and drug-related crimes are the result of the illegal nature of
the drug trade. |
If this was really the number one concern of the DEA then
they should be advocating tough prison sentences against alcohol.
- Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown
to commonly increase aggression. . . .
- Alcohol drinking and violence are linked through pharmacological effects on behavior,
through expectations that heavy drinking and violence go together in certain settings, and
through patterns of binge drinking and fighting that sometimes develop in adolescence. . .
.
- Illegal drugs and violence are linked primarily through drug marketing: disputes among
rival distributors, arguments and robberies involving buyers and sellers, property crimes
committed to raise drug money and, more speculatively, social and economic interactions
between the illegal markets and the surrounding communities. . . .
Psychoactive Substances and Violence,
published by the Department of Justice, Series: Research in Brief, February 1994
The image of the insanely violent drug user has been a common argument for drug
prohibition since the earliest days of the laws when the New York Times published front
page articles about "Negro
Cocaine Fiends, New Southern Menace." It is an image which has been used to
justify the cruelest kinds of responses to social problems. It never did have any basis in
fact.
The Department of Justice's own research clearly shows that the only real connection
between illegal drugs and violence is the violence created by the fact that it is illegal.
The best example of this is shown by our own history of alcohol Prohibition. The
increase in crime and violence associated with alcohol Prohibition was so extreme that
many of the people who originally supported Prohibition became convinced that it was a
dreadful mistake and campaigned against it. See, for example:
Repealing National Prohibition
The History of Alcohol Prohibition
Should Alcohol Be Prohibited?
Why Alcohol Should Not Be Prohibited |
| Proponents state that users commit crimes to pay for drugs
now because they cannot easily obtain them. If drugs were legal, they say, the enormous
profits associated with drugs because of their illegal status would evaporate and, once
gone, the black market and criminal activity associated with drugs would also be
eliminated. |
This is certainly true. One good example of this is the
experience in Liverpool, England, when they opened heroin and cocaine maintenance clinics
for addicts. Crime was reduced, street drug sales were reduced, and the number of new
addicts declined dramatically. See Rx Drugs, The
Liverpool Experience. |
| Participants in the Anti-Legalization Forum, who are experts
in crime and violence, disagreed strongly with the notion that crime and violence would be
reduced if drugs were legalized. It is widely claimed by those advancing the case for
legalization that crime is largely committed by drug traffickers protecting their turf.
Sadly, it is the experience of many local police officers that crime is committed not only
because people want to buy drugs, but more often because people use drugs. There is no
denying the fact that drug use changes behavior and exacerbates criminal activity. |
This is contradicted by the research of the Dept. of Justice
itself. Their report, Psychoactive Substances and
Violence (Feb. 1994) states: Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one
whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. . . .
Illegal drugs and violence are linked primarily through drug marketing: disputes among
rival distributors, arguments and robberies involving buyers and sellers, (and) property
crimes committed to raise drug money. . . . |
| The experts also believe that legalization will lead to
increased availability of drugs, which will, in turn, lead to increased use. |
The experience of alcohol Prohibition shows that prohibition
does not reduce drug use in the long run. See, for example, the charts on alcohol-related
problems in The History of Alcohol
Prohibition. |
| The use of drugs, especially cocaine, crack, methamphetamine,
and PCP, is often associated with violent criminal behavior. There is ample evidence which
demonstrates the links between drugs, violence and crime, and the links between a
currently legal substance--alcohol--and crime are well documented. Police can attest to
the fact that alcohol plays a significant role in domestic violence cases. Drug use would
only swell the statistics regarding crime, even if the drugs were legally purchased. |
Again, the DEA is clearly contradicted by the research of the
Department of Justice. See Psychoactive Substances
and Violence. It should be noted that marijuana is not included in this statement so
the DEA recognizes that this wouldn't be a valid argument for marijuana prohibition in any
case.
The image of the insanely violent drug user has been a common theme of drug prohibition
since the earliest days when the New York Times published front page articles about "Negro Cocaine Fiends, New Southern Menace"
(NY Times, February 8, 1914) It is an image which has been used to justify the cruelest
kinds of responses to social problems. It never did have any basis in fact. |
| Legalization proponents ignore the fact that the people
committing violent crimes are career criminals who will not stop their illegal activities
once drugs are legalized; they will instead seek new sources of illicit revenue. |
This is the argument that if we "legalized" drugs
then the criminals would just find another line of work. There is nothing else which
offers the opportunity to get rich so easily. By comparison, all the other crimes are hard
work. This is an interesting argument. We must keep drugs illegal because it gives work
to criminals who might be doing something more dangerous if we did not. That is, having
these people sell drugs is a good thing because it keeps them out of bigger trouble.
Relatively speaking then, selling drugs is not so bad as other potential crimes so we
should make sure they keep doing it.
Of course, then the question becomes: What would happen if we actually did stop the
flow of drugs? Would we have to start manufacturing drugs and distributing them through
these same criminals just to keep them from doing something worse in society?
According to this argument, we are better off if the drug war never does succeed. |
| Criminal activity would not be reduced as a result of drug
legalization any more than gangster activity disappeared after the repeal of Prohibition. |
Gangster activity did not disappear after Prohibition, but it
was tremendously reduced. The problem of gangster activity -- and widespread corruption of
law enforcement -- during Prohibition were some of the main reasons for its repeal. See,
for example: The History of Alcohol
Prohibition
The Wickersham Commission Report on
Alcohol Prohibition. |
| The group discussed the fallacy that legalizing drugs would
eliminate the black market environment which seems to fuel the drug trade and its
attendant violence. The existence of a black market is heavily dependent on the parameters
set by the legalizers: which drugs would be legal, the potency level of drugs and the age
at which legal drugs could be purchased. If drugs were legal for persons over 18, for
example, drug traffickers would still target those 17 and younger; if only marijuana were
legalized, drug traffickers would continue to traffic in heroin and cocaine. |
We effectively eliminated the black market for alcohol. The
existence of a black market is simply a function of how repressive the policies are. The
DEA supports the most repressive policies which must, in turn, produce the largest black
market. It should also be noted that illegal drug dealers sell to children now, and even
seek to involve them in the trade. This was also true of alcohol Prohibition and stopped
only when alcohol Prohibition was repealed.
No sensible person pretends that any drug policy is going to solve all the problems
related to drugs. That is clearly unrealistic. At the same time, there is no reason to
undertake policies, such as we have now, which only make the situation worse.
Let's face it. The DEA never has had any effective control over the drug markets and
they never will. By taking this approach the DEA has insured that only the outlaws will
have control of drug sales and distribution. |
| Some facts which help to confirm the observations of the
forum participants may be used in debates: |
|
- A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (7/6/94) reports that
cocaine use is linked to high rates of homicide in New York City and that "homicide
victims may have provoked violence through irritability, paranoid thinking or verbal and
physical aggression which are known to be pharmacologic effects of cocaine."
|
It is interesting to note the DEA claims that drug users are
violent against others. This particular report, however, says that drug users are more
likely to be victims of violence. That is, the DEA is now blaming the victims for
drug-related violence. What the DEA is alluding to here in the last part of this
paragraph is the fact that people are more likely to be victims or homicide than to be
perpetrators of homicide while under the influence of cocaine. The same statistic is true
of alcohol. What it means is that people who get stoned on anything sometimes do stupid
things, such as getting themselves killed. This is even more true of alcohol, but does not
make a good reason to throw people in prison for drinking wine or beer.
It is true that drug users are often the victims of violence at the hands of non-users.
One good example of this is the fact that narcotics agents have killed more people
enforcing the marijuana laws than have been killed by marijuana itself. |
An April, 1994 report titled "Violent Drug-Related
Crime" compiled by the Drug and Crime Data Center and Clearinghouse indicates that
drugs are used by many offenders committing crimes. In 1991, the following percentages of
state prison inmates involved in violent offenses reported that they had used drugs at the
time the offense was committed:
|
We called the Drug and Crime Data Center and Clearinghouse
(1-800-666-3332) to try to obtain a copy of this report. They stated that there is no
report which matches this description. A search of their records showed that the report
which most nearly matched this description was "Psychoactive
Substances and Violence" by the US Dept. of Justice, Feb., 1994. We have placed a
copy of this report online to demonstrate that it contradicts nearly everything the DEA
says in this claim. The DEA is clearly not telling the truth. The Sourcebook of Criminal
Justice Statistics of 1992 lists the breakdown of drug use during commission of violent
offenses. The figures shows that, with the exception of robbery, about 75 to 90 percent of
all the reported drug use was use of alcohol, not illegal drugs. For robbery, the figures
are roughly equal.
People who commit violent crimes are likely to have a lot of problems in their lives,
including use of illegal drugs as well as higher rates of use of alcohol and tobacco. That
doesn't necessarily mean that one problem is causally related to another.
Even if we assumed, as the DEA implies, that all of this was due to illegal drugs, they
don't mention comparison data for the number of people who took whatever drug and did not
commit a violent crime.
Even if we assumed the DEA is right, there is no evidence that the best way to control
the problem is to put people in prison. |
DRCNet Response to the Graph:
The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics lists the breakdown of drug use during
commission of violent offenses. The figures show that, with the exception of robbery,
about 75 to 90 percent of all the reported drug use was use of alcohol, not illegal drugs.
For robbery, the figures are roughly equal. A copy of the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice
Statistics can be obtained by calling 1-800-666-3332.
People who commit crimes are likely to have a lot of problems in their lives, including
use of illegal drugs as well as higher rates of use of alcohol and tobacco. That doesn't
necessarily mean that one problem is causally related to another.
Even if we assumed, as the DEA implies, that all of this was due to illegal drugs, they
don't mention comparison data for the number of people who took whatever drug and did not
commit a violent crime.
Even if we assumed the DEA is right, there is no evidence that the best way to control
the problem is to put people in prison. Alcohol is the best example of that.
DEA Statement |
Response |
- Data from the National Institute of Justice (U.S. Department of Justice) Drug Use
Forecasting (DUF) program underscore the crime-drugs link. Of a sample of males arrested
in 23 U.S. cities in 1993, the percent testing positive for at least one drug in the DUF
survey ranged from 54% in Omaha to 81% in Chicago. Among female arrestees, the percent
testing positive for any drug in 20 cities ranged from 42% in San Antonio to 83% in
Manhattan.
|
This isn't particularly surprising, considering that a large
percentage of arrests are for drug offenses. Even if this wasn't true, the numbers could
be just the reflection of wide spread illegal drug use in society as a whole. The data
of the Drug Use Forecasting program is interesting but it does not underscore the
crime-drugs link. The data are simply measures of the number of people arrested who had
drugs in their system. There is no similar comparative data on people who were not
arrested, or did not commit crimes.
It is also a long way from showing any causal relationship between drugs and crime
except, perhaps, for the fact that people who are stupid enough to get severely drunk or
stoned are prone to do stupid things. That would not make it a good idea to have drug
prohibition any more than the fact that we arrest people who are drunk and disorderly
makes it a good idea to have alcohol prohibition. |
- A May 1993 Bureau of Justice Statistics report states that "Drug use was common
among inmates serving time for burglary, robbery or drug offenses. Among inmates serving a
sentence for burglary or robbery, about 6 in 10 inmates had used drugs in the month before
the arrest for the current offense, and about 4 in 10 were under the influence at the time
of the offense."
|
The number of inmates who used drugs in the month before the
arrest is as irrelevant as the number who drank a beer during the month before the arrest.
In fact, the DEA has confused this argument by not mentioning the breakdown between
alcohol and the other drugs. Alcohol is clearly the biggest part of that drug use. It
should be noted that being under the influence of drugs is a convenient excuse which seems
to suit everybody involved in a criminal prosecution. The defendant can plead that he
wasn't himself because he was out of his mind on drugs and thereby play on the court's
sympathies for leniency. The prosecutors can point to another horrendous drug problem,
which suits their interests as well.
It should also be noted, again, that there are no comparative figures for the number of
people |
| The same study indicates that female inmates were more likely
than male inmates to have used drugs in the month before the offense (54% versus 50%) and
to have been under the influence at the time of the offense (36% versus 31%). Another
finding of the study indicated that among 18-49 year old males, those who had used
alcohol, cannabis and cocaine at some point during the past year were ten times more
likely to commit a violent act (26.1 percent versus 2.7 percent) than those who used none
of the above. |
The use of drugs in the previous month is just as irrelevant
as stating that they drank a beer in the previous month. It is worthless as a predictor of
criminal behavior. It should be noted that the DEA fails to distinguish between alcohol,
cannabis, and cocaine, all of which have vastly different effects. If they had
distinguished this, they would have found the same thing the Dept. of Justice found --
alcohol is the only drug with any real connection to violence. See Psychoactive Substances and Violence.
The DEA conveniently ignores the fact that alcohol has the highest association with
violence and that cannabis (hemp) has none. The DEA contends that, because someone had a
beer up to a year ago, they are potentially violent today. There is no evidence of a
causal relationship here at all. Even if there was, there is no evidence that prison would
be the best way to control drug use. |
| Mitchell S. Rosenthal, M.D., president of a major New York
City drug treatment center, Phoenix House, and chairman of the New York State Advisory
Council on Substance Abuse, notes that one of the basic contentions of advocates of
legalization is that drug users are essentially normal people. Actually, Dr. Rosenthal
said in a speech in 1993, drugs undo the bounds that keep many seemingly normal people on
an even keel. "The treatment community does not contend that society is at risk from
the behavior of all drug abusers or even the great majority of them," he said.
"The case for prohibition rests on the substantial number of abusers who cross the
line from permissible self-destruction to become 'driven' people, who are 'out of control'
and put others in danger of their risk taking, violence, abuse or HIV infection." |
Here again, the DEA states that the vast majority of people
who use illegal drugs are not a threat to society. The argument for prohibition, they say,
rests on the abusers. This is the same as saying that the way to control alcoholism is
to prohibit alcohol. That is, we must arrest casual beer drinkers in order to keep people
from becoming alcoholics. We tried this already, and it was a clear failure. See The History of Alcohol Prohibition.
The DEA argues that drug users are not "essentially normal people", even
while they state that at least two-thirds of them are gainfully employed taxpayers.
As for undoing "the bounds that keep many seemingly normal people on an even
keel" and all the other problems mentioned, these problems are equally true of
alcohol. Yet they do not recommend that we bring back Prohibition of alcohol.
Again, the DEA attempts to lump all drugs together, as if they all had the same
effects. General statements about "all" drugs are intentionally misleading. |
- The International Association of Chiefs of Police published a report in 1993 titled
"Violent Crime in America." It states "Drug abuse and crime, both violent
and nonviolent, are linked. National Crime Victimization surveys in 1989 and 1990 revealed
over 2,000,000 crimes committed by offenders under the influence of drugs or
alcohol...this represented 36% and 34% of total violent crime recorded by the
surveys."
|
Again, the DEA muddies the waters by failing to draw a
distinction between the drugs. As the Dept. of Justice research shows, alcohol is by far
the greatest part of these statistics. The other drugs are very minor by comparison. It
should also be noted that there is no mention here of marijuana, which has no relationship
to violent crime. |
- Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys indicate that "25% of convicted inmates in
jails, 33% of state prisoners, and 40% of youths in state-operated facilities admit being
under the influence of an illegal drug at the time of their offense" (BJS, Drug and
Crime Facts, 1992)
|
This is not surprising, considering that a similar percentage
of inmates are in there for illegal drug offenses. It is more notable that they often
continue their drug use after going to prison. The DEA is not even able to keep drugs out
of prisons. |
- Data from Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys show that 77.7 percent of jail inmates,
79.6 percent of state prisoners, and 82.7 percent of youths in long-term public juvenile
facilities had used drugs at some point in their lives.
|
Again, the DEA does not distinguish between the drugs, and
there wouldn't be a causal relationship shown with anything, even if they did. The DEA
does not provide any comparative statistics for drug use in society at large. |
| This what the DEA did not tell you. Convicted
jail inmates under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the current offense.
Percent of convicted jail inmates under the
influence of:
Most Serious (All Alcohol Both Total
Offense Illegal) Only
Drugs Only
Violent Offenses 8.8 30.7 16.1 56.6
Homicide 5.5 49.5 13.7 68.7
Sexual Assault 3.5 21.1 21.1 45.7
Robbery 17.7 18.1 17.3 53.1
Assault 4.5 44.3 9.8 58.7
Other violent 10.0 21.8 27.3 59.2
Property Offenses 18.2 17.9 12.8 48.9
Drug Offenses 28.6 7.3 12.3 48.2
Public-Order 6.4 54.1 9.6 70.1
Offenses
From: Sourcebook on Criminal Justice Statistics, 1992, Table 6.54, page 603. |
| Department of Justice statistics indicate a growing number of
young arrestees are marijuana smokers. Data from 12 major urban areas showed a sharp jump,
from 16.5% in 1992 to 26% in 1993, in teenage arrestees who tested positive for marijuana,
the Department said. |
That is not surprising, considering the fact that more people
are being arrested for marijuana offenses. See the arrest statistics and other material on
the web sites of National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws and the Marijuana Policy Project. See
also the DEA's own chart on marijuana arrest among
juveniles.
It should also be noted that, while the DEA says that marijuana use is rising, they
claim later that Prohibition is Working. |
| And this is the modern, high-test marijuana, about three
times (sometimes more) the strength of the 1960s and 1970s weed. |
This, again, is mythology. The strongest varieties of
marijuana - hashish - have been available for thousands of years. See, for example, History of the Intoxicant Use, from the US
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. See also the many references on the Hemp/Marijuana Historical Information Page. |
| |
The marijuana of today is not significantly stronger, on
average, than the 1960s and 1970s weed. See, for example: Cannabis, 1988 - Old Drugs, New Dangers The DEA
itself says that the average marijuana of today is not significantly stronger than the
marijuana of the 60s and 70s. See |
Sources:
NIDA, "Heroin," NIDA capsules, August 1986; DEA, Drugs of abuse,
1989, G.R. Gay, "Clinical management of acute and chronic cocaine poisoning:
Concepts, components and configuration," Annals of emergency medicine, (1982) 11(10);
562-572 as cited in NIDA, Dale D. Chitwood, "Patterns and consequences of cocaine
use, "in Cocaine use in America: Epidemiologic and clinical perspectives, Nicholas J.
Kozel and Edgar H. Adams, eds., NIDA research monograph 61, 1985; NIDA, James A. Inciardi,
"Crack-cocaine in Miami," in The epidemiology of cocaine use and abuse, Susan
Schober and Charles Schade, eds., NIDA research monograph 110, 1991; and NIDA;
"Marijuana," NIDA capsules, August 1986.
DRCNet Comment on the DEA's Chart
The Drugs they did not include:
Drug Type
|
Desired Short-Term Effects
|
Other Short-Term Effects
|
Duration of Acute Effects
|
Risk of Dependence
|
Alcohol
|
Euphoria, excitement, relaxation
|
Poor perception of time and distance, impairment of judgment, fine motor skills, and
Memory, respiratory depression, nausea, drowsiness, headache, death from overdose
|
2 to 4 hours
|
Physical - high
Psychological - high
|
Tobacco
|
relaxation
|
Nausea, headache, cancer, Central Nervous System damage, death from overdose
|
1 to 2 hours
|
Physical - high
Psychological - high
|
|
