From: hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Date: 31 Jan 92 19:08:26 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: A few WOD questions

d40374w@kaira.hut.fi (Tero Valkonen) writes:
> 
>I have a few questions concerning WOD.  
> 
>1: When did WOD officially begin?  

There is no easy answer to this.  One response might be
that the WoD began in 1914 with the passage of the Harrison
Act.  However, it took a few years before certain bureaucrats
reinterpreted it into a blueprint for prohibition.  Cannabis
was functionally prohibitted in the U.S. in 1937.  The first
thaw in the drug war started after the early 70s.  Nixon had
a redoubled WoD but this was occurring at the same time that
many of the laws/values of the "establishment" were being
questioned.  Illicit drug use -- mostly cannabis -- skyrocketed.
By the mid-70s politicians saw that a sizeable chunk of the
public was fed up with the futility of the drug war -- particularly
against cannabis -- and a movement started to look into the 
whole issue of whether or not the government should have
a category of "victimless crimes."  By 1977, Carter called for
MJ "decriminalization".

By the end of the 1970s, U.S. and state laws regarding MJ were
the most "liberal" in over 40 years.  It looked as though peace
in the drug war might be at hand.  Then Reagan came in.  Nothing
much changed at first.  However, when PR efforts to improve the
image of Nancy Reagan produced the "Just Say No" campaign --
which was originally directed just at children -- the trend began
to change.  I would say that the latest round of the drug war
began around the end of 1985.

>2: How much money does the goverment annually spend on WOD? 

The feds spend over $10 billion and the states about the same.
Bush's latest request is, I think, in the neighborhood of $12
billion.  These expenditures are just the DIRECT costs and 
don't include the cost of new prisons that are necessitated by
overcrowding from incarcerating non-violent drug users.  I'm
sure there are a number of other indirect costs -- perhaps
CATO has done an economic analysis of all this.

>3: Does anyone have any idea about how many people are 
>   killed each year in drug gang shootings and other 
>   violence that's a direct result of illegal drugs? 

That's a good question.  I believe there is a difference of
opinion on the extent to which overall violence has increased.
Milton Friedman claims 10,000 additional deaths/yr but some of
comes from tainted drugs -- I'm not sure what percentage is
supposed to be from black market violence.  It is also the
case that studies have shown that the overwhelming number of
people who have been locked up for "drug crimes" are non-violent
offenders.  However, it is also the case that certain violent
criminals who also happen to be drug abusers commit a disproportionate
number of violent crimes.

Given the above, it would seem that most people who use illegal
drugs, AND ARE ARRESTED FOR IT, are not violent criminals but
a few violent criminals really do robberies and muggings to
support their habits.  What is significant is that the current
drug war is locking up people who were not, heretofore,
considered a problem.

>4: Since the WOD begun, has anything gotten better? 
>   Has the number of drug users increased/decreased 
>   significantly? 

If we just look at the Nixon drug war followed by the partial
cease-fire of the late 70s following by the mid-80s Reagan/Bush
resumption, the evidence would suggest that the drug war is
irrelevant in terms of drug use.  Use increased during and after
Nixon.  Use peaked AND BEGAN TO DECREASE when the law was relaxed.
This trend continued pretty much unchanged through to the present
with a few interesting deviations.  One is that crack cocaine
exploded after the mid-80s "crack"down.  It also seems, recently
that LSD use may be increasing.  I don't have hard data on the 
latter but news reports have been suggesting this and there is
also the well known problems metabolite drug test have in 
detecting LSD use.

Probably the most important reason for the decline in drug use
starting in 79 was demographic.  As a person ages, drug use
apparently tends to decline.  It was the baby boomers who
contributed to the great upsurge and the aging boomers who
found that they just weren't as interested as job and family
responsibilites took more of their time.

>Thanks in advance for possible replies.  

My pleasure.