12-16-89 . . . Rhetorically speaking, this society is engaged in a war against drugs. Presidents [Ronald] Reagan and [George Herbert Walker] Bush have taken every opportunity to complain about the “problem”, develop programs to solve it, and encourage young people to “Just Say No” to drugs. President Bush has gone so far as to appoint a “drug czar”, William Bennett (formerly the Secretary of Education). Bennett’s job, so far as I can tell, is to coordinate federal efforts to interdict drug shipments, prosecute offenders, educate children, and perform research on the deleterious effects of drug use. (The assumption is that drugs have no beneficial effects.) Ironically, several prominent figures, including a number of public officials, have argued that the production, sale, and use of drugs such as cocaine should be legalized and regulated, like tobacco and alcohol. The ever-growing list includes Baltimore mayor Kurt Schmoke, conservative editor William F. Buckley [1925-2008], former Secretary of State (in the Reagan administration) George P. Shultz, Princeton University professor Ethan Nadelmann (whom I met during my visit to Princeton in 1988), and, just recently, federal district judge Robert Sweet. These people argue that the violence associated with drug sales and drug use is caused by the value of the drugs. Because they are forbidden, supplies are kept artificially low relative to demand. This keeps the price high and gives people an incentive to kill and maim those who threaten their profits. There are drug wars going on not only in South and Central America, where many of the drugs are produced, but in urban areas of this country. Violence is endemic.
The argument should be taken seriously. It is consequentialist in nature, focusing as it does on the consequences of adopting various policies. The argument is that a policy of legalization and regulation, imperfect though it may be, has better overall consequences than the current policy of prohibition and punishment. It may be that some people who would not use drugs when they are illegal would try drugs, and become addicted to them, if they were legalized. Unfortunately, Bennett doesn’t take the argument seriously. In fact, he has stated publicly that those who make the argument are irresponsible. He calls them morally bankrupt and labels their arguments “stupid”. These, of course, are ad hominem attacks. Bennett refuses to address the arguments themselves, which is surprising, since he has a Ph.D. [degree] in philosophy. It’s as if the public debate is going on at two levels: one in which the assumption is that drugs will remain illegal and in which the only question is how best to combat them; the other in which it is an open question whether drugs will remain illegal. As a philosopher, I’m interested in the structure of the arguments rather than their conclusions.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 