The Law

Is the United States winning the war on drugs? Supporters of current antidrug policies point out that sting operations by the DEA have disrupted Mexican and Colombian drug cartels and intercepted tons of heroin destined for the United States. They believe that strict sentencing for drug offenders is justified and that it acts as a deterrent for would-be drug users.

Reform advocates counter that efforts to curb drug trafficking have not reduced the flow of heroin into the United States. They claim that strict sentencing has packed prisons with nonviolent minor drug offenders at taxpayer expense.

It is unlikely that there will be any significant trend toward loosening the drug laws in the near future. No lawmaker wants to be viewed as “soft on drugs,” unwilling to punish offenders. When President Bill Clinton took office in 1993, it was predicted that he would have a more lenient stance on drugs than the presidents before him. Instead, Clinton poured money into antidrug programs during his presidency, and he appointed retired four-star military general Barry McCaffrey to serve as “drug czar” and coordinate antidrug efforts. Nevertheless, the number of heroin users doubled between 1993 and 2000.

Drug policy is a hotly debated issue. Strong enforcement of drug laws and high incarceration rates are very expensive. Would money be better spent on increasing drug education, prevention efforts, and rehabilitation of addicts? Marijuana has been shown to have some medical benefits. Should the government decriminalize medical marijuana use, or would this send a message condoning the use of illicit substances in general?

There is virtually no chance that heroin will ever be widely legalized, but it does have potential medical uses. As a painkiller, heroin has one major advantage over morphine: it reaches the brain more quickly. Some doctors believe that administration of heroin could help alleviate the pain of terminal (dying) cancer patients.