BATTLE AGAINST ILLEGAL DRUGS HAS BECOME IMPRACTICAL

As the years go by, the amount and intensity of antidrug propaganda
seems to be increasing considerably as people try to prevent and
minimize drug use in the United States. Other efforts to accomplish
this goal include investing in expensive programs to control drug
trafficking, and of course, crime enforcement.

However, extensive prevention and enforcement efforts have resulted
in little gain. In the past 20 years, drug prices have plummeted and
availability has soared. In 1981, the retail price for a gram of
cocaine was about $1,000; currently, it is about $140. In a recent
survey by the Drug Policy Alliance, 90 percent of 12th-graders said
that marijuana is "easy" to purchase.

The strict legal consequences for being caught with drugs have only
given way to reformation of the trade -- drug dealers and traffickers
have become smarter in how they do business. Perhaps rather than
fighting in a quixotic battle to exterminate the drug problem, the
U.S. should instead consider legalization.

Although it might seem radical, legalization of less-lethal drugs,
such as marijuana, could prove to be just what is needed to more
effectively deal with this problem.

The first effect of legalization would be the elimination of the
middlemen: the traffickers, dealers and cartels. Not only would this
lead to an end of sophisticated drug trafficking, it also would
extract money from foreign and domestic groups that use drug money to
support terrorism.

As a result of a direct and legal purchase of drugs, the government
could track usage and regulate the quality of the drugs, limiting the
dangerous products of homemade and dealer-enhanced drugs.

The liberal drug policy also would be conservative on the budget.
Legally selling drugs would allow government to place a sin tax on
them, much like cigarettes. This extra revenue could be used to
establish rehabilitation centers, rather then wasting more than $17
billion per year on the failing drug war. Not having state prisons
occupied with drug offenders who were caught with insignificant
amounts of marijuana also would save money, and leave space in the
system for more dangerous criminals.

Many may argue that such a radical policy is a recipe for trouble,
and that legal and increased availability would only further the problem.

However, examples such as the current Dutch drug policy suggest
otherwise. In comparison with surrounding countries, where drug use
has skyrocketed, consumption in Holland has remained virtually
unchanged since the legalization of less-lethal drugs in 1976. In
fact, Holland has seen various benefits of its policy, including an
impressive decline in AIDS cases (often found among drug users who
share needles).

Yet another aspect of drug use that has practically disappeared in
Holland is the taboo that follows it. People use drugs partly because
of the attraction to its taboo. Legalization could desensationalize
drug use, eliminating the risque appeal of drug consumption.

As a teen, whether drugs are legal or not, my attitude toward them
will remain the same -- similarly to how I refuse to smoke cigarettes
or chew tobacco, even though legally I can. I honestly can say that
what drives me to remain drug-free is not the annoying propaganda
that costs taxpayers billions of dollars; nor is it merely the fact
that it is illegal. I am drug-free simply because of the morals that
have been instilled in me by my family.

The war on drugs is not changing the habits of the consumers, nor
preventing use by those who remain abstinent. Legalization of certain
drugs offers a new method of dealing with the drug problem, one that
would prove effective and proactive.