Ending the Drug Prohibition

"I'D like two grams of cocaine, one ounce of pot, and, let's see, five quaaludes," said the middle-aged professional to the man behind the counter.

"What kinda coke would ya like. Merck or Squibb? By the way, you know, we have a special on 'ludes--buy six, get one free."

"O.K., give me six quaaludes, and I'll go for the Merck Last time I used Squibb, it just wasn't that good."

AS fantastic as this scenario sounds, more and more people are starting to think that the complete legalization of narcotics is the only way to bring the drug problem under control.

Mayor of Baltimore Kurt L. Schmoke made national news last week when, before a gathering of the country's mayors in Washington, D.C., suggested that Congress set up a committee to reconsider America's current drug policies.

Schmoke is one of the few elected officials who has dared to swim against the current of the "Say 'No' To Drugs" fervor. He argues that the country might be better by simply conceding the war against drugs and make the best of a bad situation.

Prohibition was a law designed for the public good but which caused more problems than it solved. Just like the end of Prohibition the legalization of narcotics would provide a host of important benefits.

Benefit #1: The end of drug-related crime.

Gangs of youths have become the principal organizations for drug trafficking in the nation's major cities. The gangs are resorting to more and more violent measures to protect their turfs, avoid police interference and enforce discipline. Los Angeles saw 387 gang homicides in 1987 alone. In New York City, gang violence has taken 500 lives during the past five years.

Police have attempted to bring the gangs under control, using almostrepressive measures including mass arrests to scare the youngsters. But the gang members outnumber and outgun law enforcement officers. Last march, a rookie New York cop was assassinated by a cocaine kingpin's hitman.

Equally important, a large percentage of non-gang crime is drug-related as millions of addicts do almost anything to secure their next fix. Thousands of innocents become victims of theft, murder, and assault from drug-crazed citizens.

Legalizing narcotics would strip the gangs of their incomes and reasons for violence. This move would deliver a crippling blow to organized crime, and the lower costs of drugs would ease the pressure on addicts to get money.

Benefit #2: Improved health of the country

Right now, millions of Americans are possibly using drugs filled with deadly impurities and injected with AIDS-infected needles.

Under legalization, the federal government could regulate the drug industry to make ensure that distributors are not putting PCP into cocaine. Clean cheap needles would be available to drug users, something many cities are already considering.

Moreover, the government could provide open and free health care to drug abusers. Addicts could be slowly weaned from their drug use. Today, addicts must either enter clinics and go cold turkey or stay hooked.

Benefit #3: Saved resoucres and money

Right now, marijuana is a $5 billion cash crop in the U.S., and the federal government doesn't see a penny of it. Instead, the government spends billions of dollars trying to stop drug trafficking.

Under legalization, the government would not only save drug enforcement costs, it could also tax drug usage. The increased revenue could go to providing the free help drug addicts need so badly.

IF anyone thinks the war on drugs is being won, they should look at the nation's inner cities where our society is being destroyed from the pavement up.

The drug lords have responded to the narcotics crackdown in a particularly devastating manner. To avoid the harsh jail sentences mandated by new federal and state laws, kingpins are using teenagers to distribute drugs on the streets.

The allure of $100 a week is too much for thousands of youngsters to withstand. The criminality of drugs even more than the drugs themselves are corrupting our young, leaving them in jail, dead, or hooked on the substances they distribute.

Of course, it would be ridiculous to ignore the risks of legalization. Other countries which have experimented with legalized narcotics have large segments of their populations using drugs on a regular basis.

But the fact remains that we are a society using drugs, and that we will never stop drug usage. The more earnest our attempts in pursuing the war on drugs, the greater the costs in violence, wasted resources, and unaided addicts.

Some law enforcement officers have said we are entering a critical phase in the country's battle with drugs. Just as the Costra Nostra became entrenched from the profits of illegal alcohol sales during prohibition, police warn that the national and regional networks of drug gangs may become entrenched in the next few years.

Yet the debate over narcotics strategies is confined to a narrow band of differing law enforcement techniques. There appears to be a taboo on reassessing our fundamental assumptions about drugs in our society.

Ultimately, the question about drugs may prove to be a painful one: should we allow drug usage to expand through decriminalization or allow uzi-toting gang members to rule our cities?