Just say no to Prohibition

How many years now has the Inquirer written about drug busts? Have your reporters or your readers noticed that seized quantities have grown? Have they noticed that drug busts continue, year after year, decade after decade?

I’ve noticed. I started my lifetime career as a policeman nearly 40 years ago, and my profession allows me to witness the drug war from the front lines. President Richard M. Nixon declared the War On Drugs in 1971 and here we are 36 years later with more drugs than ever on our streets. Does anyone believe this is a war we have won? That we can ever win?


When our grandparents began their experiment of Prohibition in 1920 with the enactment of the 18th Amendment, their underlying intentions were noble. They sought to end the travesty that can accompany the misuse and abuse of alcohol.

In the end, however, Alcohol Prohibition was a bad public policy, and there were many unintended consequences, including an increase in public violence because gangsters competing for territory and control of bootleg booze distribution fought open gun battles on our streets. Police and public officials fell into corruption, swayed by the wealth offered by criminals who controlled the manufacturing and distribution of alcohol.

An increased production of more potent alcohol caused an upswing in deaths and injury. Consumption by young people became a problem. Finally enough people recognized the failures of Prohibition, and in 1933 the 18th Amendment was repealed with the enactment of the 21st Amendment. When Prohibition's repeal went into effect, organized crime's control of alcohol was lost because they could not compete with the lower prices of controlled sales.

At Prohibition's end, industrial magnate John D. Rockefeller, Jr. wrote, ... drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.

Could those words be spoken today about the drug war? Could we end the monopoly that the gangs and cartels have on the black market in illegal drugs? Could we slay the drug dealers' golden egg-laying goose by the re-legalization of all drugs?

In real life terms Drug Prohibition has wrought upon our population all the same harms that alcohol Prohibition created. Each year we gift the cartels some 500 billion dollars in untaxed cash money. Money that allows them to adapt to each new strategy of law enforcement in the War On Drugs.

Because of the drug war's failures we must take a different path. No matter how far down Prohibition's road we have traveled it is not too late to turn back. We need to take control of these substances away from criminals and focus our attention on ending the harms that drug abuse create. We need to spend our time and money dealing with the problems that Drug Prohibition has created.

Re-legalization of drugs does not mean we are saying yes to or encouraging people to use drugs. By re-legalizing drugs, we will free up law enforcement to focus on real crime. We can leave addiction and its treatment to those professionals who have the appropriate medical skills. We can leave education about the harms of drugs to professional educators. The campaign against tobacco use has been demonstrably successful by using truthful education outreach. And those successes have come without the firing of a single weapon, without SWAT teams breaking down doors, without our elected representatives making grandstanding, get-tough speeches.

There is an alternative to the drug war IF we truly wish to succeed in reducing the ravaging effects drugs are having on our communities and our children. The alternative is to just say NO to Prohibition.

Tim Datig
LEAP etc

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Sponsored
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

Brain study finds circuits that may help you keep your cool

Research by neuroscientists at MIT's Picower Institute for Learning and Memory helps explain how the brain regulates arousal.

Photo by CHARLY TRIBALLEAU / AFP/ Getty Images
Mind & Brain

MIT News

The big day has come: You are taking your road test to get your driver's license. As you start your mom's car with a stern-faced evaluator in the passenger seat, you know you'll need to be alert but not so excited that you make mistakes. Even if you are simultaneously sleep-deprived and full of nervous energy, you need your brain to moderate your level of arousal so that you do your best.

Keep reading Show less

34 years ago, a KGB defector chillingly predicted modern America

A disturbing interview given by a KGB defector in 1984 describes America of today and outlines four stages of mass brainwashing used by the KGB.

Politics & Current Affairs
  • Bezmenov described this process as "a great brainwashing" which has four basic stages.
  • The first stage is called "demoralization" which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve.
  • According to the former KGB agent, that is the minimum number of years it takes to re-educate one generation of students that is normally exposed to the ideology of its country.
Keep reading Show less

How pharmaceutical companies game the patent system

When these companies compete, in the current system, the people lose.

Politics & Current Affairs
  • When a company reaches the top of the ladder, they typically kick it away so that others cannot climb up on it. The aim? So that another company can't compete.
  • When this phenomenon happens in the pharmaceutical world, companies quickly apply for broad protection of their patents, which can last up to 20 years, and fence off research areas for others. The result of this? They stay at the top of the ladder, at the cost of everyday people benefitting from increased competition.
  • Since companies have worked out how to legally game the system, Amin argues we need to get rid of this "one size fits all" system, which treats product innovation the same as product invention. Companies should still receive an incentive for coming up with new products, he says, but not 20 years if the product is the result of "tweaking" an existing one.