I know that you will not make the mistake of thinking that this article will be about prescription drugs. Prescription drugs are for treatment, healing and, other specific purposes. They are not the subjects of newspaper articles like this one. They are not matters of controversy and, people don’t have opposing viewpoints about them.

This piece is about illegal drugs, and my viewpoint is that for a certain element in our society, drugs are a business on which their livelihood depends.

How come people are allowed to engage in businesses dealing in illegal drugs, if it is against the law, which makes them criminals? Why doesn’t the Police Department do its job and arrest them? The police do arrest them, they are tried and, a few are convicted and put in jail. The rest are acquitted because, we have very clever advocates who win all their cases. So, what happens? Those acquitted return to their business and, those who go to jail are replaced by new operators. Do you know why? Because their business is very profitable. Do you know why? Because illegality makes the commodity they deal in, scarce and, increases its value. Also, there are people who prefer the commodity to their good health. Unless we understand that this is the nature of the social problem we are facing, we will never be able to find what measures of public policy will be successful in changing the status quo.

There is a list of prohibited drugs which are considered harmful to the health of their users, to a lesser or greater degree. The state considers it necessary to criminalize them, in order to protect their users from their own folly. By this law, the state takes away its citizens’ right to choose what they shall eat, drink, snort or smoke,

In Belize, the three prohibited drugs we are concerned with, are cocaine, crack cocaine and marijuana.

From the information available to me, I am advised that cocaine is imported and, is the most expensive. Crack cocaine is manufactured locally. It is a mixture of pure cocaine and other substances and, has the most harmful effects. Marijuana is the leaf of a local plant, dried and crushed. It is the least expensive and the least harmful.

I understand that at least 20% of the adult population use marijuana. Do I know this as a fact? Do we know the number of cocaine and crack users? Do we know how many persons are engaged in supplying the drugs to the local market and, what is their annual income? Would it make any difference if we did?

To a lot of us, it would make no difference. Many think that it is a good thing that the law punishes both the supplier and the consumer of prohibited drugs because, if there were no consumer there would be no supplier. They might even think it would be a good idea to punish only the consumer. The law would be unfair but, then, the foolish consumer might get the sense that he was making himself twice a victim.

I have been painting a picture of the “business” in prohibited drugs from the suppliers’ side, in conjunction with the law which makes it a criminal offence to buy or sell them. Now, let us consider the law which applies to all businesses, including the “business” of prohibited drugs. This law governs how people behave in a commercial world, which is a world we all live in. This law always existed. It was discovered by the economists. No state made this law and no state has the power to revoke it. The law says that anything “useful” which people are prepared to buy, becomes a “commodity” and, if people are prepared to buy it, other people will find a way to supply it in the “market.” Whether the commodity is a prohibited drug is of no consequence in the market. The law I refer to is called, “The Law of Supply and Demand.”

The Law of Supply and Demand operates this way. When the demand for a commodity is about equal to the supply, the price of the commodity will be stable – about the cost of supplying the commodity plus about 20% profit. If demand for a commodity is greater than the supply, prices will increase and, if supply is greater than demand, prices will fall.

Shortages are occasioned by natural disasters, like hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, droughts, forest fires, etc. Gluts occur when suppliers overestimate the demand, or, for other reasons, overproduce.

These are the vagaries of the marketplace which are normal. What happens in the case of prohibited drugs is abnormal.

Before a government declares that a particular drug is prohibited, its supply and demand were very likely equal, and the price comparatively low. On such a declaration, the price of the drug would increase and continue upward as the government’s efforts at intervention and interdiction increase. It will become more and more difficult for the supplier to reach the consumer so the costs to the supplier and the price to the consumer would increase.

The conflict between the U.S. government and the producers/suppliers of cocaine has been going on for many years, with a lot of collateral damage to non-combatants and, there does not seem to be any sign of abatement. Perhaps, the conventional weapons used to discourage those engaged in the drug trade, are not enough. Heavy fines and long jail sentences for drug dealers have not deterred others from taking their places. Perhaps, it is because very few drug barons are convicted after they are apprehended and face court trial. Perhaps it is because, profits from their businesses allow them to employ the best legal representation available. Regardless. There must be a better way for the state to discourage (not prevent) the use of harmful drugs. There are other, perhaps better, ways to achieve the desired objective rather than making it a crime to use your own money to buy a substance which will do you harm. After these many years of fighting a war against prohibited drugs, extending that war to countries heretofore peaceful and friendly, isn’t it time for American law makers to reconsider the situation and, devise a new strategy?