AOL Transcript 11/27/95 Eric Sterling

Copyright 1995 America Online, Inc.

PhilCLU: Good evening everyone. I'm Phil Gutis, the genial host of the ACLU online series, and the ACLU's media relations director. We return tonight to one of our favorite topics -- drug policy -- and our guest is Eric Sterling, the President of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. Let me take a few moments to more fully introduce Eric and then we'll get to your questions. 

PhilCLU: Eric has had quite a career in the area of criminal justice. Whoops. Looks like my guest got bumped. Let me continue the introduction and I'm sure he'll be back. He has served as Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, on the staff of the Subcommittee on Crime, as a principal aide in developing crime control bills. He's an expert witness in many trials and an professorial lecturer at the American University. 

PhilCLU: Sorry for the delay folks. Our first question comes from SeeSalyRun. 

Question: To me, drug legalization is the most logical start to curing most of societies problems. Opponent's arguments surprise me in their emotionalism. What are people afraid will happen that is worse than what is already happening? 

SterlingEE: Good question. People are afraid, not without reason, that drugs will become more widespread in their availability. Kids will get more drugs than the current nightmare. One other emotional aspect is that many people feel that drug use is immoral. I don't agree. I think that drug prohibition is immoral. 

PhilCLU: Our next question for Eric Sterling, President of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, comes from JLong6302. 

Question: Is anyone willing to say that drugs (alcohol included) do not impact innocent people? There are victims even if it is just the family of the user. Every dime spent on "personal" recreation of that nature deprives both our community and the family. No? 

SterlingEE: First, most drug use does not produce victims. Most drug use results in no harms. Certainly however there are hundreds of thousands of cases in which people abuse drugs -- just like alcohol, and the families are victims. But prohibition doesn't offer society, or the families of the victims any better protection than a system of regulation and control. Perhaps someone might ask what "legalization" means before we all start jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. 

PhilCLU: We're talking about drug prohibition with Eric Sterling. The next question comes from Ryan72269. 

Question: Do you have any specific drugs you think would be beneficial to legalize, and why? 

SterlingEE: Heroin could be made available through clinics with known potency and clean needles -- the system would include supervision to keep track that the social responsibilities of the heroin users are being met. Cocaine is a hard one. It is easier to see coca beverages, perhaps cocaine chewing gum like those fed to monkeys by Dr. Ron Siegel in his famous experiments. 

SterlingEE: Marijuana is perhaps the easiest in that it is most like alcohol as a mass consumed drug. Potency would be labeled. Taxes would be set. Advertising would be prohibited -- sorry to all my ACLU brethren. Sales to minors would be prohibited. As part of all of this, I would encourage -- and if I were drug czar -- I would fight for stricter controls on alcohol and tobacco with an end to vending machines. 

SterlingEE: Drugs need to be seen in a continuity. I think promotion of alcohol and tobacco use -- primarily targeted at the young -- is ultimately a promotion of the experience of getting high or using drugs to fit in. Miller Time advertisements essentially teach us "you deserve a chemical break today" at a tavern. Once were trained to use chemicals to relax, then we begin to find the chemicals we like especially. 

PhilCLU: We're talking about drug prohibition. The next question for Eric Sterling, President of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, comes from Rufus KC. 

Question: why isn't marijuana approved as a prescription drug by the government? 

SterlingEE: Another good question. Marijuana doesn't meet the FDA requirements of safety and efficacy right now. We don't know exactly how it works to increase appetite for example. We don't know how it works to control spasticity for folks with multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury. We don't know enough about how to properly label and set out dosages for patients. We don't yet have a manufacturing capability to ship to pharmacies around the nation without getting mold or other crud on the marijuana. BUT THE bottom line is that there is not yet enough political DEMAND for medical marijuana. But hold on, that's coming. 

PhilCLU: PeterS20 has an interesting thought. What do you think Eric? 

Question: There are too many institutions that make money off drug policies, they will never let it happen 

SterlingEE: The instititutions that make money are no different than other powerful interests. If you accept that we are a democracy and that a majority of the people will call for rational cost effective policies notwithstanding the special pleading of selfish interests, then the people will get what they want -- legal marijuana for medicine, and perhaps for social, recreational and religious uses. 

PhilCLU: We're talking with Eric Sterling, President of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. Our next question comes from Codyotis. 

Question: I am a firm believer that drug legalization would help many of our country's social problems. However, it's crazy to waste time debating or working toward legalization because the issue is sure political suicide for any politician or lawmaker. Right? 

SterlingEE: Good point, but I disagree. Baltimore's mayor Kurt Schmoke has been re-elected overwhelmingly after having been outspoken for drug legalization. Indeed, he has been re-elected TWICE. If you are a one issue candidate, and all you are for is "legalizing" drugs, you won't win. But a strong candidate I think can take this position and continue to win. But they have to be strong. 

PhilCLU: Our next question for Eric Sterling comes from StudyBuddy. 

Question: Do you think that, by making drugs more available..... more people will experiment....more people will become addicted.... and we'll wind up having a bigger drug problem than when we started? 

SterlingEE: Excellent question StudyBuddy. My approach is not to make drugs more available than they are now. They are plenty available under prohibition because the criminal profits are so great. Anybody can sell drugs today, anywhere. Under a system of regulation you try to reduce access. Medicalization of heroin use, for example, will shrink the criminal market. Those who are addicts are the overwhelming largest portion of the market. If they are being supplied reasonably priced -- meaning actual production costs plus reasonable profits -- drugs, perhaps 80% of the now criminal market will be taken away. This will enable enforcement to substantially shrink the criminal market. 

SterlingEE: You can probably guess that I recognize that you can't magically eliminate the criminal market in a system of regulation. You will need enforcement. So restricting availability is part of it. I suggest a new way of thinking about a specialized class of pharmacists -- consulting pharmacists -- who would have a professional responsibility to you as a client to guide you in your choice of drug taking. If the pharmacist, in her professional opinion, felt that shooting heroin was not appropriate because you have a serious alcohol problem, that pharmacist would be professionally and ethically restrained from making heroin available to you. 

PhilCLU: We're talking about drug prohibition with Eric Sterling, President of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. Eric, by the way, has agreed to a no-holds barred debate on this issue after our auditorium event in the ACLU's Free Speech Zone. Hope you'll join us. The next question, though, comes from Delazure. 

Question: I do agree with the prospect of legalizing drugs, but where do you draw the line so that the whole of society is not walking around stoned all the time? 

SterlingEE: Again, a good question. Implicit in the question is that drugged reality is better than sober reality. is it? Implicit in the question is that the American people (or any people) really can't be trusted to take responsibility for themselves. Thomas Paine discussed this question in COMMON SENSE in the late 1770s. The ultimate goal of our education system is to teach self control, not to enhance control by others. if you don't believe that human beings are inclined toward self-control, then we have to ask, can I trust you? Maybe we need big brother after all. ;-) 

PhilCLU: Our next question for Eric Sterling comes from JJWsubvert. 

Question: The Christian Right and the Republicans have traditionally gone after the user/abuser and not the drug itself, How can we influence the masses to see that the pain is much greater when drugs are illegal? 

SterlingEE: JJ -- tough question. Maybe we just have to dose the water supply ;-) 

SterlingEE: Seriously, it will take study to point out that the pain -- as you put it -- is more crime, greater organized crime, police corruption, and the temptation of a generation of capitalist entrepreneurs into an enterprise that lands them in prison and out of productive work FOREVER! 

PhilCLU: A quick plug for the Drug Reform Coordination Network.... 

Comment: People who wish can get involved in drug policy reform via the Internet by hooking up with the Drug Reform Coordination Network, of which Eric is a member of the advisory board. Send e-mail to drcinfo@drcnet.org or visit http://www.drcnet.org on the web. 

PhilCLU: And the next question from Ronkarate. 

Question: Living in the San Francisco Mission District, I think that drugs would actually be HARDER to find if they were legalized. I'm shocked by the amount of illegal trade in my neighborhood, and I'm sure it is the same inner cities. 

SterlingEE: Ronkarate, I suspect that you are correct about many neighborhoods. Licensed premises, with discreet signs could be a way to get the market and consumption out from in front of your house, your bus stop, your Laundromat, your park and your kids school. 

PhilCLU: A challenging comment from LS Ordway for Eric Sterling, President of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. 

Comment: What do you say to the kids of addicted parents who were short changed by their parents weaknesses? 

SterlingEE: LS -- good point. What would you say? Are the kids of addicted parents LESS short changed than by alcoholic parents, workaholic parents, abusive parents? One way that addicted parents short change their kids is that they are very busy trying to cop -- to find drugs. And another way is because of the cost -- addicts are often impoverished. But of course one could ask, what do you say to the child whose parents are in prison for 10 years because of prohibition. 

SterlingEE: Parents who grow pot, or who are non-violent users of LSD, or who now not only addicts, but swept up by informants and police officers to cram into the prisons. What do you say to that kid? 

PhilCLU: An international question for Eric Sterling comes from Dead1212. 

Question: How come in the Netherlands drug laws are more relaxed & they seem to have less of a problem? 

SterlingEE: The Dutch undertook a major study of drug laws in the 1970s. Their study recommended that a program that separated soft drugs -- cannabis -- from hard drugs -- heroin and cocaine -- was a way to keep experimenters away from the hard traffic. The second thing the Dutch did was to adopt a program called "harm reduction." This says that we know junkies are out there. Can we make their lives less miserable? Can we keep them free from disease like hepatitis or HIV? So the Dutch started distributing clean needles to addicts from many points around their cities. When the junkies came to get or exchange used needles, they were regularly exposed to counselors who offered them help -- psychological help -- help getting treatment, help getting clean. The addicts were not treated as disgusting scum that had to be squished like roaches, but as brothers and sisters who had problems who need help. 

PhilCLU: We have time for a couple more questions. But this topic, as usual, stirs up quite a buzz. I'm backlogged by more than a hundred questions. Remember, Eric has agreed to come over to the ACLU's Free Speech Zone (if he can get in...) after this evening's event. 

PhilCLU: Our next question comes from Moose7Jack. 

Question: Are there any figures available about deregulation in terms of cost-effectiveness that you can share with us? 

SterlingEE: Moose -- excellent question. Keeping a person in prison for a year costs the Feds $20,000 per year. Treatment can be had for several thousand $ per year. I think we could raise about $6 billion in marijuana taxes each year in a legal system instead of spending $5 to 10 billion on marijuana enforcement. We are now spending -- Federal, State and local -- $30 billion on drug enforcement. Well, the government says lets take the profits out through the forfeiture of drug dealers profits. They get less than $1 billion per year. On a $50 billion a year criminal business, that is a tax rate of 2%. Less than sales tax, it ain't much of a bite! This is an area in which much more research is needed to see what a policed and regulated market in drugs would look like. Good Question. 

PhilCLU: Well, folks, I'm afraid that's all the time we have for tonight. Come on over to the ACLU's free speech zone to talk with Eric himself! Make sure to leave room for him to get in though. 

PhilCLU: Goodnight folks!