Drug cartel-fueled violence along the U.S./Mexico border has renewed the debate over legalizing marijuana and other recreational drugs. Linda Valdez, editorial columnist, recently called for legalizing marijuana, citing it as a primary profit- maker for drug cartels. She argues that consumers enjoy the intoxicating effects of marijuana in the same manner that they enjoy alcohol, and that potential addiction is something that users believe they control. As with past efforts such as Prohibition, she judges this war unwinnable. Legalization and taxation, she writes, will reduce the influence of organized crime and help to pay for the social costs of addiction (Arizona Republic, March 15, 2009). Robert Robb, another editorialist, affirmed her stance on the grounds of protecting the liberty of the individual from specious definitions of criminal conduct. He argues that recreational drug use “should be treated as a matter of personal responsibility and personal and public health.” (Arizona Republic, March 19, 2009).

An opposing opinion piece by John Walters of the Hudson Institute noted a gradual drop in the numbers of young users of illegal drugs in the U.S., citing 900,000 fewer now than in 2001. He credits this to the success of current education, treatment and workplace testing programs and to the diversionary practices of the criminal justice system, as well as policies aimed at reducing supply. He notes, however, that legalization of alcohol has not eradicated addiction, citing alcoholism rates of approximately 10% among the 100 million Americans who drink at least monthly (Arizona Republic, March 19, 2009).

In February, three former presidents of Latin American countries, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil and Cesar Gaviria of Colombia called the war on drugs a failure despite years of enforcement efforts and billions of dollars in U.S. aid. They cite 5,000 violent deaths related to narcotics within the past year in Mexico alone (Wall St. Journal, February 23, 2009).

Since alcohol is a recreational drug often utilized to illustrate the benefits of legalization, I thought I’d check some statistics on its use and abuse in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control lists the number of alcohol-induced deaths for 2005, excluding homicides and accidents, at 21,634. (Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm.) Mothers Against Drunk Driving reports that every 40 minutes on average, a drunk driver kills someone and estimates that 12,998 people died in crashes related to driving drunk in 2007. (This is the good news – deaths down from 13,491 in 2006.) The cost of crashes related to alcohol in 2000 was approximately $114.3 billion, and 63% of this was borne by the public rather than the driver who was drinking. (Source: http://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Driving/Statistics.aspx.)

All of this makes me wonder about rights and obligations, freedom of choice and taxation. I’m accustomed to liberties grounded in the Constitution, and to viewing issues in terms of personal freedom. But as Amesbury and Newlands point out, “…The notion of rights is meaningless if a person’s rights do not make some sort of corresponding demand on the behavior of others;” and rights can be immunities as well as liberties (Faith and Human Rights, p. 25). So… Does a citizen’s right to recreational drug use (including legal drugs) obligate other citizens to pay for treatment and rehabilitation if addiction takes over? (If I’m addicted and need help, shouldn’t I expect that assistance just as an effort to benefit the social fabric, if not to care for me personally?) Can the social and personal costs of abuse and addiction be adequately addressed by treatment efforts in a therapeutic field yielding mixed results and high rates of recidivism? Is the government’s need for funds to pay for regulation, treatment, education, etc., sufficient justification for legalization and taxation of commonly used illegal drugs? Do rights to be free of drug-related violence, here and abroad, support a policy of legalization or a policy of interdiction? …What do you think?