I think your comparison of our " counter narcotics" efforts with the smoking reduction program is right on--but you didn't go far enough in my view. Look carefully at the major components of the anti-smoking campaign: 1) there was no blanket ban on smoking; 2) advertising of tobacco products was eliminated; 3) the cost of smoking was increased; and 4) the variety of smoking options was narrowed. The result: over a period of several decades, we have witnessed a dramatic decrease in the number of people who smoke--one of the factors contributing to an increase in life expectancy.
Each of the components listed above is important and is worth discussing:
1) No blanket ban on smoking ... if you want to increase interest in a product, just make it illegal. Many people (especially young people) engage in risky behaviors as a form of rebellion ... a way to tell "the man" to fuck off. Banning a substance doesn't eliminate the market ...
it just drives the production, distribution and sale of that product underground and into the hands of criminals. The cartels, with all of their associated crime and violence, are a creation of our drug policies. This isn't rocket science--just recall our short but disastrous experiment with alcohol prohibition. And lastly, banning the production of a product means that users will be getting their supplies from illicit sources with no regulation, testing or quality control. Legally manufactured opiates are not laced with fentanyl.
2) Eliminating adverising: studies have shown how readily a good marketing campaign can manipulate people into buying products that they neither want nor need. Curtailing advertising was a major player in smoking reduction. In regard to narcotics, we have a head start here ... drugs currently advertised in the media are generally not suitable for recreational purposes.
3) Increasing cost: This is kind of a no-brainer, a natural limiting factor. Unless I am addicted and am willing to steal to feed my habit (generally not a successful long-term strategy), my drug, tobacco or alcohol consumption has to fit into my budget. While the idea of quitting entirely may be a non-starter for many substance users, an incremental reduction in consumption, as costs increase, is something that they can live with. Slowly increasing "sin taxes" for consumables that pose a public health risk would likely seem reasonable to most people.
4) Narrow the array of options: those who sell ... well, just about anything ... are always looking for a way to appeal to the consumers' hunger for novelty. Tweak a product, give it a new name, and watch flagging sales come to life. Just think of all of the sugar-drenched cereals sitting on supermarket shelves. The government has banned flavors in cigarettes (other than menthol, and that too is on the chopping block), and blocked the importation of clove cigarettes. The underlying assumption (with substantial evidence to support it). is that many consumers hooked on the variants would dramatically reduce their usage or quit entirely if given only one option--plain tobacco with no flavor enhancements.
If we applied these same principles to a counter narcotics program, I think it is likely that we would gradually see a similar reduction in usage. I don't have the space or the time to detail what such an approach might look like, but it definitely could be done. In closing, let me quickly make a critical observation. To transition from our current , failing drug policies, based on prohibition and punishment, to a more permissive and incremental approach will require some truth telling.
The notion that legalization will be followed by a sharp increase in drug use is not supported by the evidence available to date. And some of the information routinely repeated by those involved in the counter narcorics industry is simply wrong. I have, for instance, heard--in a conference for drug educators--that if a person takes one hit of methamphetamine, he or she will be addicted for life. That, of course, is absurd--it is impossible to become physically addicted to any substance after one-time use. Independent university studies vary somewhat, but generally indicate that 80 to 90 percent of casual meth users will develop neither a dependency nor an addiction.
There is a bettrer way to address the drug crisis in this country, and smoking cessation programs show us what it is. When are we going to set aside the drug war propaganda and ineffective strategies and do what has proven to work?
