Part 2. Medical
Chapter 4. The Drug Pusher
The drug business, an evil business, is responsible for agonizing deaths, crime, robbery, enforced prostitution, and often, murder.
The addict is usually marked for life, even after kicking the habit.
During the addictive period, the addict is a helpless slave to the drug, willing to enter into any degradation to secure one more fix.
How, then, can the evil nature of the drug pusher be questioned? How can we even presume to look upon him with favor?
The evils commonly blamed on heroin addiction are in reality the fault of the prohibition of drugs and not of the addiction itself.
The Prohibition of Heroin has the devastating effect of forcing the price up to a level which can only be characterized as astronomical.
When a commodity is outlawed, in addition to all the usual costs of growing, harvesting, curing, transporting, and selling drugs,
it is the person who sells drugs illegally who does more than anyone to mitigate the evil effects of the original prohibition.
that he has outlawed, in addition to all the usual costs of growing, harvesting, curing,
transporting, merchandising, etc., the costs of evading the law and paying for the punishments
meted out when the evasion fails, must be added.
In the case of bootleg whiskey, during the prohibition era of the 20s, these extra costs
The costs were not excessive because law enforcement was lax and the legislation did not have widespread
popular support.
In the case of heroin, these costs are enormous.
Anti-heroin legislation enjoys wide popular support with demands for even stricter laws
and penalties.
Vigilante groups and youth gangs in the inner-city ghetto areas have inflicted their own punishment
on Drug Pushers and Addicts.
These groups have had the quasi-support of the law and order faction, making it difficult
and expensive to bribe the police, who fear the great penalties society would impose on
them if they were caught.
In addition to having to pay costly bribes to the police, the drug merchants must also
pay high salaries to their employees for the dangers they encounter in smuggling and operating
These are the factors which account for the high price of heroin.
But for these many extra costs imposed by the prohibition of heroin, the price would
would not differ in any significant way from the price of other crops, wheat, tobacco,
soya beans, etc. If heroin were legalized, an addict could obtain his daily need for
about the cost of a loaf of bread, according to the best estimates. Under prohibition,
heroin addiction may cost as much as $100 per day for a mature habit. Depending upon
On market information and alternative sources of supply, the addict spends about $35,000
per year to support his habit.
It is obvious that this cost is responsible for the untold human suffering usually blamed
on heroin addiction.
The typical addict is usually young, uneducated, and unable to earn a sufficient amount of
money by honest means to support his habit.
If he does not seek medical and psychiatric help, the only choice the addict can make
to secure his fix is to enter into a life of crime, where he may eventually be hunted
down by the police or street gangs.
Furthermore, the addict criminal is in a far worse position than the non-addict.
The non-addict criminal can select the most opportune time and place for a robbery.
But the addict must commit a crime whenever he needs a fix, and these times usually occur
when his reactions are dulled by his drug deprivation.
In reflecting upon the economics of fencing stolen merchandise, it becomes obvious that
the addict must commit an enormous amount of crime to support his habit.
To have the annual amount of $35,000 necessary to buy drugs, the addict must steal roughly
The figure of $200,000 is multiplied by the estimated 10,000 addicts in New York City.
The total of $20 billion is the amount of the total value lost in crimes committed
by Addicts in the Big Apple.
It cannot be stressed strongly enough that these crimes are due to the prohibition of
heroin and not the result of heroin addiction.
It is the prohibition that drastically forces its price up and drives the addict into a
life of crime and brutishness, which may end in his own death or that of the victim.
To prove this point, consider the small but significant number of medical doctors who,
having access to heroin, have addicted themselves.
Its price is not prohibitive, since their supply of the drug is not illegal.
Their lives are normal, useful, and fulfilling, with just this one difference.
Economically speaking, their lives would not be too different if, instead of being addicted
to Heroin, they were diabetics and addicted to insulin.
With either addiction, these doctors would still be able to function professionally.
If however their legal supply of heroin were cut off, or insulin were suddenly declared
illegal, these doctors would be at the mercy of the street pusher, unable to ascertain
the quality of the drugs they purchased and forced to pay exorbitant prices for their
Supply. Under these changed circumstances, the position of the addicted doctor would
be more difficult, but it would not be catastrophic, since most of these professionals could easily
afford the $35,000 annual cost of their habit. But what of the uneducated addict living in
poverty who does not have these prospects? The function of the heroin seller, as opposed
to his motivation in entering the field, is to keep the price of the drug down.
Each time a few more heroin sellers enter the industry, the price goes down even more.
Conversely, each time the number of heroin sellers decreases, through discouragement
or prosecution, the price rises.
Since it is not the sale or use of heroin itself that is responsible for the plight
of the Addict or for the crimes he commits, but rather the high price of heroin caused
by its prohibition, it must follow that any action which results in a drop in the price
of the drug alleviates the problem.
If the problem is caused by the high cost of the drug, then lowering the cost must be
considered as a solution.
But it is the heroin pusher who is instrumental in lowering the price of the drug, and the
forces of law and order who are responsible for raising these prices by interfering with
the activities of the pusher.
Therefore it is the much reviled drug dealer, not the widely beloved narcotics agent, narc,
who must be considered the heroic figure.
Prohibition of heroin has been rejected on the grounds that progress and civilization
would come to a halt.
The British and Chinese experience with addictive drugs are cited, and we are supposed to picture
scores of people lying around in the street zonked out of their minds.
The argument is that anything which interferes with progress, such as the widespread use
of heroin, should be prohibited.
But there are other things that can interfere with continued progress which most people
would not be willing to prohibit.
Leisure, for one.
If employees took vacations which amounted to 90% of the working year, progress would
certainly falter.
Should long vacations be prohibited?
Hardly.
In addition, the present prohibition of heroin does not eliminate access to the drug.
Formerly it was available only in the inner city ghettos.
Today, it can be purchased on affluent suburban street corners and schoolyards.
In the example of the Chinese experience with drugs, Chinese merchants were forced by gunboat
diplomacy to accept opium.
The legalization of addictive drugs would in no way force individuals into the habit.
Indeed, force, or the elimination of force, is the chief reason for scrapping the prohibition of heroin.
In the British case, drugs administered legally at a low cost by a doctor or licensed clinic,
the argument has been made that the number of addicts has risen sharply since their low-cost program started.
But this rise is a statistical artifact.
Formerly, many people were reluctant to report themselves as addicts when it was illegal
to be one.
When addiction was legalized and low-cost drugs were available, the statistics naturally
rose.
The British Government Health Service administers drugs to certified addicts only.
It would indeed be surprising if there were any marked increase in the rate of addiction
under these circumstances.
Another source of the increase in the number of statistically counted addicts is the migration
to the United Kingdom from commonwealth countries.
This sudden immigration might well cause temporary problems of adjustment, but it is hardly an
indictment of the British plan.
On the contrary, it provides ample testimony to the farsightedness and progressiveness
of the program.
To blame this program for the rise in addiction would be similar to blaming Dr. Christian
Bernard, the first doctor to perform transplant heart surgery, for the rise in the number
of people in South Africa who wanted heart surgery.
In conclusion, it should be stated that heroin addiction may be an unmitigated evil, without
any socially redeeming features.
If so, efforts to publicize the evils of addiction can only be applauded.
However, the present prohibition of heroin and other hard drugs serves no useful purpose.
It has caused a countless amount of suffering and great social upheaval.
In seeking to uphold this vicious law, the narcotics agent keeps prices up and adds to
the tragedy.
It is only the heroin seller, by acting so as to lower prices, even at considerable personal
risk, who saves lives and alleviates the tragedy somewhat.