Legalizing Drugs
As a physician, I applaud the courageous call by Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders for the study of the legalization of drug use (Dec. 8). I am the author of a successful resolution which resulted in the California Medical Assn. reversing its longstanding opposition to the decriminalization of drug use earlier this year. It should be obvious, even to the casual observer, that the illegal nature of drug use results in a myriad of social problems, most significantly, the establishment of crime networks in search of the massive profits involved. In addition, the expenditure of scarce resources for law enforcement precludes the effort at drug treatment, which is so desperately needed.
As to the often heard argument that legal drugs would lead to increased use, one need only look at the present pilot program in Liverpool, England, where doctors are permitted to prescribe drugs for the addicted. Not only has the crime rate dropped, but the drug pushers have largely left town since there is no market for them. This has resulted in a decrease in the incidence of drug use in that city.
DAVID PRIVER MD
San Diego
* The statements by Elders relating to the possible benefits which could be realized by legalizing addictive drugs, and the subsequent dialogue on radio and television, have absolutely astounded me. As a psychopharmacologist who specializes in the cumulative effects of these drugs on brain and behavior, it has become very apparent to me that many spokespersons on this issue have very little scientific knowledge, and that those working in the battlefield against drug addiction rarely adopt such a stance.
I am absolutely convinced that no clear-thinking individual with an understanding of what has developed in the past several decades in biological psychiatry, psychopharmacology and molecular biology would seriously advocate the unleashing of these agents on the general population.
It is clear that the development of more sophisticated pharmacological agents has had an extraordinarily beneficial effect in the treatment of many mental disorders. But what is less publicized is the fact that this same biochemical revolution has led to the development of addictive compounds of a potency never experienced by mankind previously. The weak alcohols, opiates, mushrooms and stimulants such as cocaine leaf extracts to which mankind has been exposed in the past several centuries have almost no relationship in addictive potential to the present arsenal.
A clear-cut example is crack cocaine. Cocaine in its natural form crosses the blood-brain barrier very slowly. But if converted to the lipid-soluble form, it penetrates into the brain extremely rapidly, and this leads to an extraordinarily rapid “high.” Pleasure-inducing compounds such as cocaine trick the brain into thinking this is a behavior which should be repeated, and so the addiction develops rapidly and profoundly.
In my research I have found certain critical parts of the brain to be irreversibly damaged by different drugs of addiction. Amphetamine or cocaine binges lead to damage in the pathways which control lower brain centers crucial for the control over motor impulses or the inhibition of behavior. Phencyclidine (“angel dust”) binges irreversibly damage the chief memory centers in the hippocampus, the structure in the brain most responsible for learning and short-term memory.
What would be the effects of decriminalizing the use of drugs of addiction? Given the extraordinary potency of some of these compounds, it would clearly lead to an increase in the incidence of addiction in the population. This effect would be most pronounced in those segments of our society that presently use these drugs the most, i.e., the lower socioeconomic classes, borderline schizophrenics, depressives, etc. The argument that crime statistics would decrease must be balanced by the recognition that drug-induced psychoses and brain damage would also increase.
GAYLORD ELLISON
Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience
UCLA Department of Psychology
* There are already legalized drugs: alcohol and nicotine. Both are abused and kill.
LARRY ADELMAN
San Marcos
* Both The Times (editorial, Dec. 9) and President Clinton are wrong! Elders is right and a growing number of Americans agree! Let’s change the verbiage and try a step-by-step approach that is acceptable to the public. Instead of “legalizing street drugs,” as The Times puts it, let’s adopt a policy of “minimizing harm” as have the laws and medical systems of England and Holland.
First, make marijuana use by adults in private legal. Second, allow adults to grow marijuana in limited quantity for their own use. This would kill the huge profits of importers and growers.
Third, treat heroin addiction as a medical problem. Allow doctors to prescribe and pharmacists to provide heroin and needles to addicts. England is doing just this under its national health system.
The winners will be the many victims of burglary, theft and homicide committed by addicts looking for money to buy drugs. The losers will be heroin dealers and smugglers.
Thirty years ago I prosecuted three men who possessed four ounces of marijuana between them. All three were sentenced to prison. “War on drugs” is folly. Our energies are better spent on convincing people that substance abuse (be it tobacco, alcohol or drugs) is life abuse.
SPENCER R. ALTER
Santa Ana
* Next to your article about the national outrage over Polly Klaas’ murder is an article in which Surgeon General Elders states that making drugs legal could “reduce our crime rate.” And yet, Polly’s murderer said he couldn’t recall all his actions during the murder because “I was so high on drugs.” Is Washington on the same planet?
WILLIAM B. SCHAFER
La Crescenta
* Unpopular positions of surgeon generals: Cigarettes can kill you; condoms can save your life; we should study legalization of drugs. History will judge them all well.
DAVID P. GAYDOS
Manhattan Beach
