DRUGS INSURMOUNTABLE PRACTICAL HURDLES : Who’s Going to Mind the Government Drug Store? : There are problems of safety, regulation and production that federal and state governments couldn’t manage. Black markets are a near-certainty.
Some supporters of legalization want the sale of cocaine, heroin and other currently illegal drugs to be handled no differently than alcohol and cigarettes. Others, perhaps uncomfortable with the idea of a relatively free-wheeling drug economy fueled by entrepreneurial producers, wholesalers and retailers, have called for government to get into the drug business. But the idea of a government-regulated or -controlled market is fraught with so many practical and ethical problems that there is little chance that it could prove workable for drug legalization.
What part of the multibillion-dollar, international drug economy would the government seek to control? It surely could not monopolize production. Practically speaking, it could not duplicate the millions of acres of coca, poppy and marijuana that now supply the U.S. market, or establish and operate sufficient laboratories to produce amphetamines, hallucinogens and barbiturates.
The more likely government role would be exclusive control over the retail sale or giveaway (according to some scenarios) of drugs. A Department of Drugs, Commerce and Transportation, if you will, would be set up to oversee and administer the distribution network. Thousands of new civil-service positions would have to be created and perhaps filled by current, experienced drug dealers.
The government would have to buy its mind- and mood-altering narcotics from established domestic and foreign sources--some of whom are probably on the most-wanted list--and from new producers seeking to cash in on America’s liberated drug appetite. The government would surely not want to forbid Americans from becoming suppliers, for that would worsen our trade deficit.
The entrepreneurial spirit would thus have a role to play in government-regulated drug sales, just as it does in the currently regulated pharmaceutical market. Producers would be strongly motivated to invent new drugs or combinations to satisfy evolving consumer tastes.
Deciding which drugs to sell might pose problems. For example, would the government sell a drug whose addictive properties are as strong as crack? If it didn’t, wouldn’t a black market for such a drug be created? Legalization might thus create a flourishing black market on top of a booming legal market, a situation akin to that with methadone and some prescription drugs (Valium) today. For legalization to dry up the black market, government outlets would have to be conveniently located and the drugs inexpensively priced. Similarly, if the government charged too high a price for its drugs or inconveniently located its retail outlets, the black market’s continuation would be assured. To beat the black market, the government would have to give away drugs or buy up all available drugs, whether it planned to sell them or not.
As the drug dealer, would not the government be responsible for certifying the safety of its products for consumption? It currently does this for pharmaceuticals. Food and Drug Administration regulations for bringing medications to market are quite stringent, requiring five to 10 years of testing. Drug-legalization advocates, however, might resist testing because currently illegal drugs might not pass muster. The government would either have to sell a dangerous product or give up legalization.
Perhaps the only feasible way out of this dilemma would be for the government to wash its hands of the drug-safety business. Yet, if the government exempted cocaine from FDA testing, why not deregulate prescription drugs like Valium and lithium? It would be a bizarre society, indeed, that sold cocaine on demand, but required a prescription for tranquilizers.
Unfortunately, some consumers of government-marketed drugs would suffer mental breakdowns, give birth to defective children or lose their jobs. Others would die or injure themselves or others on the highways or in the workplace. Would the government be liable for the injuries that its drug consumers caused to themselves and others?
To protect itself from an avalanche of lawsuits by dissatisfied consumers and their victims, the government would have to disclaim any responsibility for the effects of the drugs it sold or gave away. In one respect, however, it would almost certainly be unable to avoid insuring against the ill effects of the mind-altering drugs it sold: Casualties of legalization would demand treatment, free of charge. The government would have no choice but to create a vast treatment system to deal with drug-related health problems.
Some of the most troubling questions in any legalization scheme are ethical. Presumably, many positions within the new Department of Drugs, Commerce and Transportation would be staffed by scientists, doctors and administrators who know that cocaine, heroin and other drugs are addictive and destructive of mental and physical health. Would they still sell or give them away?
Perhaps the Department of Drugs, Commerce and Transportation could justify its new mission on the ground that continuing drug prohibition would have produced even more human suffering and social costs. In the end, defining or redefining an ethos of public service embracing the sale of heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, barbiturates and hallucinogens might well constitute an insurmountable challenge.
