Winning "Wars" With Compassion
When are governments going to realize that the only way to win the war on drugs is to eliminate the demand? It is difficult to believe that world leaders and their governments actually assume that they are capable of cutting off supply to a multi-billion dollar world market for drugs, estimated to be at $435 billion per year according to the UNODC. Are our governments and leaders actually that naïve that they feel they even have a chance to gain control of an illegal drug trade that is so varied, ingenious, ruthless and corrupt. There is simply too much money and power involved combined with an appetite for consumption that is showing no signs of slowing down.
Those engaged in the illegal drug trade are driven by huge profits fueled by the illusion of limited supply created by the war on drugs. The war on drugs does nothing more than force the participants (traffickers and dealers) to be more creative and take more risks. The end result are crisis like we faced now with fentanyl and W-18. The evolution of these markets are a direct response to pharmaceutically created opiate addicts with little to no rehabilitation support and a tightening of the heroin supply worldwide. Believe it or not, heroin is actually the least deadly of these three drugs. The war on drugs has resulted in dire consequences for the addict and yet there is still very little additional money being thrown at rehabilitation but rather it continues to be directed to the worthless war on drugs. Just as was learnt during the prohibition era, restriction of supply, while there still exists a huge demand, is futile.
In 1925, H. L. Mencken wrote an impassioned plea: "Prohibition has not only failed in its promises but actually created additional serious and disturbing social problems throughout society. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic but more. There is not less crime, but more. ... The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished.
It is time that we look at a different approach. It boils down to simple math. It is estimated that the United States and Canada combined spend over $100 billion on their war on drugs (Canada's contribution is about 3%). Since the inception of the war on drugs, the United States has spent in excess of $1 trillion and the sad reality is that they are no closer to winning the war than they were before it began. As a matter of fact, some would argue that they have actually lost ground as designer and laboratory drugs have began to take the place of the traditional drugs that the war has attempted to control. It is estimated that roughly 5 million Canadians and 20 million Americans are addicted to illegal drugs. The UN suggests that 208 million people worldwide consume illegal drugs and over a third of them reside in North America. Using the simple math suggested earlier, if we redirected every cent wasted on the war on drugs towards the rehabilitation of the addicts that would provide communities $4,000 per addict per year for rehabilitation. By rehabilitating the addicts, educating the public and eliminating the demand for illicit drugs, one could expect that the war on drugs would quickly be won as there would no longer be the ridiculous profits to traffickers and dealers. The industry would quickly dry up.
It is time that we try love and compassion for the addict rather than demoralization and shame. What really do we have to lose? There is no chance of it costing more than the war on drugs. As a matter of fact, the savings could be more than triple the $100 billion through reduced health care costs, policing and incarceration costs, judicial and attorney costs and most noticeable to the public, reduced property and violent crime costs. Within a year, rehabilitated addicts would be once again be productive and contributing members of their communities which generates tax revenue and increases GDP. Very quickly, those people that were once a burden on society are actually contributing to it. In effect you have doubled the benefit because the loss is actually now a gain. It boils down to simple math.
