The year: 2050

The Scene: The Washington D.C. ghetto. Officers Smith and Jones hold a bag containing a brown substance. In the corner, blood still glistens on the forehead of an extremely overweight dealer. President George W.W. Bush has vowed to crack down “with the most severest penalties” on criminals who use or deal illicit substances. In response to the most recent terrorist attack on U.S. soil (the worst in the past 15 years) he issued the following statement: “When you quit using chocolate, you join the fight against terrorism.”¹

Officer Smith: What do you make of it, Jones?

Jones puts some of the brown substance to his tongue.

Officer Jones: Hmm. Sweet. Too good to be carob. Definitely chocolate.

Smith: Just as I suspected. It makes me sick. People throwing their lives away on this stuff.

Jones: Yeah. It seems like all the hard work we put in barely makes a dent.

Carl Berry, the president of CRCL, discusses the history of chocolate reform to a group of about 20 reporters. 

Berry: I’m going to give you a few stats to get started, just to demonstrate the ludicrous nature of the criminalization of chocolate. Incarceration rates in federal prisons have increased eightfold since the turn of the century.³ Approximately 55% of federal inmates were incarcerated for chocolate-related offenses.³ Our corrections facilities are overflowing.⁴ Americans spend over $60 billion per year on illicit chocolate.⁵ The federal, state, and local governments spend over $35 billion a year on chocolate control.⁶ Enforcement and prosecution of chocolate laws are racist. If convicted on chocolate offenses, black people are 10% more likely to be incarcerated than white people; in addition, sentences for black offenders are greater than 13% longer than sentences for white offenders.⁷ All this, and chocolate abuse, as well as obesity-related deaths, have continued to grow.^8,9 Chocolate laws just aren’t working – it’s as simple as that. Any questions? 

Reporter 1: Since the latest terrorist attack, The White House has started a PR blitz linking chocolate users in the U.S. with terrorists around the globe. Can you discuss the connections? 

Berry: It’s true that many terrorist groups receive a significant portion of their funding from the sale of illicit chocolate. But the White House is leaving out a lot of important facts. Most of the illicit chocolate in the U.S. comes from non-terrorist sources in the U.S., Canada, Central and South America.¹⁰ The U.S. government’s own estimates of the amount of illicit chocolate money from Americans that actually funds terrorists is about 0.67% of the total Americans spend on illicit chocolate.¹¹ But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that American chocolate money were a major source of income for terrorist organizations: if chocolate were made legal, it would instantly become much easier to regulate and trace the flow of the money going into it. In addition, the value of chocolate would drop dramatically. Thus, it would no longer be a good source of income for terrorist organizations. In a sense, it is our government’s draconian chocolate prevention laws that are keeping many terrorists in business, not Joe American on the streets buying a dime bag of chocolate chips.

If you think of the violence on U.S. streets today as a form of terror, you can blame much of that on the chocolate war as well.¹² Chocolate prices are inflated by their illegality. This makes chocolate an important black market commodity. People selling chocolate want to protect this commodity, so they buy weapons. And of course they have the money to buy weapons because of all the chocolate they’re selling. Because the market is illegal, there’s no way to regulate it, and violence often erupts between rival sellers.¹² This violence often ends up spilling over into the lives of innocent bystanders, as well as making the lives of our police officers much more tenuous. Furthermore, because of the criminalization of chocolate users, many are afraid to seek help. And because of the high cost of chocolate, many users resort to criminal activity to support their habits.¹²

Getting back to the link between chocolate and terrorism, the government has, inadvertently, brought up a good concept: it’s important to try to understand how your purchases, as consumers, affect the rest of the world. If you buy a car, a refrigerator, or whatever, how will it affect the environment? If you buy a pair of tennis shoes, are you supporting child labor or sweatshop labor? If you buy fast food, are you supporting the destruction of the rainforest? Are you supporting racist, sexist, or homophobic companies? How can we as consumers make the world a better place? Incidentally, Al Qaeda, the group that destroyed the World Trade Center in 2001, received millions of dollars from the sale of illicit diamonds;¹³ so how culpable were Americans who purchased wedding diamonds in that terrorist act?

Reporter 2: How bad is chocolate for you?

Berry: Nobody’s saying that chocolate is good for you. It may well contribute to increased obesity. But not all chocolate users are abusers. If chocolate were decriminalized, though, it would be much easier for chocolate abusers to receive health services, and they’d be much less afraid to seek help. Furthermore, our government could move some of its resources currently allocated to enforcement of drug laws into treatment and education.

Reporter 3: It has been suggested that chocolate use is itself immoral – can you discuss this?

Berry: Ethics are a sticky subject, because there are different ideas about what is right and wrong. Personally, I think adults should have the right, the freedom, to decide what is right or wrong for them, as long as it doesn’t have direct negative consequences for others. Should we legislate everything that’s unhealthy? Should risk-taking be made illegal? Now if it were shown that chocolate directly caused people to go out and harm others, I’d probably have different feelings about it, but chocolate-induced violence is very rare – again most chocolate-related violence is because chocolate is illegal.^12,14 If the government is truly interested in helping people, they will make chocolate legal – that’s the most ethical option.

Reporter 3, following up: So what are the implications of legalization? How would you implement it?

Berry: An argument could be made for legalization on moral principles alone – we should be able to do what we want to our own bodies regardless of the consequences. But the great thing about legalization of chocolate is that it will have widespread positive social implications as well. Of course, any projections about legalization’s effects are somewhat speculative because there are no precedents for our society in this day and age. But we can look for parallels in such things as alcohol prohibition in the U.S. in the beginning of the last century, and modern policy examples in other countries. Let’s say our goal with any chocolate policy is to help the most people. What is the best way to reduce chocolate-related violence? What will reduce chocolate-related costs to society the most? And, of course, what’s the best way to help chocolate abusers themselves? The answer is legalize chocolate.

What is the best way to reduce chocolate-related violence? One of the greatest historical examples of increased violence as a result of criminalization of a substance occurred in this country during alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and 30s. Homicide rates during this era soared to almost the highest they’ve ever been, dropping quickly when Prohibition ended in 1933.¹⁵ Gang and mob activity thrived under alcohol prohibition.¹⁵ Interestingly, alcohol is the only psychoactive substance known to often increase aggression, yet when it was made illegal, violent crime in this country increased.^14,15 Under chocolate prohibition, violent crime has increased threefold and property crimes have more than doubled.¹² The vast majority of violence associated with chocolate is not chocolate-induced, but is the result of a black market system of chocolate marketing.¹²

What will reduce chocolate-related costs to society the most? With legalization, the costs of enforcement, courts, and corrections will drop dramatically. Healthcare costs and costs due to lost productivity may rise initially, as many people try chocolate out of curiosity, but there is evidence to indicate that these costs will stabilize, and may even drop below today’s levels. In the Netherlands, where chocolate policy focuses on harm reduction and de-emphasizes criminalization of users, chocolate use is well below that in the U.S.¹⁶ Compared with other European nations, the Netherlands is among the lowest in percentage of problem chocolate users.¹⁶ By essentially decriminalizing chocolate use, the Netherlands has actually been able to increase the productivity of its citizens, while decreasing government and societal costs.

What’s the best way to help chocolate abusers? Is it to incarcerate them? Again, the approach taken in the Netherlands seems to be far more effective than our policies. The idea is that chocolate abusers have a health problem, and the best way to deal with it is to treat them, not to marginalize them and send them to prison. In fact, there is a program of “normalization” in Holland wherein chocolate users are integrated into society rather than treating them as criminals.¹⁶ It makes sense that if you treat adults like adults and let them make choices about their own lives, they’ll act more like adults. I say the best way to help chocolate abusers (and their families and friends) is to recognize their affliction, and to provide them with health services and counseling – why not put our money into this instead of trying to force people not to do something they’re going to do anyway? I’m not pro-chocolate, I’m pro-people, and legalization is the best way to help our people; it’s the best way to help the people of the world.

I’ll take one last question.

 Audience Member 4, snickering slightly: Isn’t it true that the President himself has used chocolate?

 Berry: There is good evidence that the President was quite a party animal in college. The rumor is that he ate illicit chocolate imported from Switzerland, but he refuses to answer questions about it.

Cut back to Officers Smith and Jones, driving back to the station.

 Jones: I just don’t know, Smith, maybe there’s a better way. We’re out here risking our lives every night for this stuff. Are these laws even working? Sometimes I wonder…

 Smith: Hey! Don’t go gettin' soft on me, Jones. I’ve put in too much time fighting these cocoa heads. We’ve got our orders. We just gotta do our job and that’s that.

The End

Most of the facts for this story were taken from U.S. government sources on the internet. Chocolate was chosen as an intentionally absurd representation of illicit drugs, but some of the current policies on drugs are as puzzling as the idea of illicit chocolate. Of course, there are many oversimplifications and problems with this analogy. First, chocolate is not the primary cause of obesity (which is, incidentally, associated with far more deaths than all illicit drugs combined – more than 100 times the number of deaths each year as those associated with the September 11^th tragedy). Second, illicit drugs generally have risks associated with them that far outweigh any conceivable risks of eating chocolate. I’d like to emphasize that there is a difference between advocating legalization of drugs and advocating drug use. Third, illicit drugs can hardly be lumped together under the locus of one substance (which is, unfortunately, what our government does). In the Netherlands, drugs are classified as Schedule I (what we might call “hard drugs,” such as cocaine, heroine, and LSD) and Schedule II (“soft drugs,” such as marijuana and hashish). 

I believe that soft drugs should be made legal, with regulations and taxes similar to those for alcohol and tobacco. Taxes from soft drugs should be used to help pay for healthcare and counseling to help people make informed choices about their drug use. Hard drugs should be conditionally legalized, meaning that to obtain them people would have to enter counseling programs. In this way people’s hard drug use would be monitored, and people with problems would be much more likely to receive the care they need. Drugs that are primarily used to harm others (such as so-called date-rape drugs), or drugs whose production creates toxic byproducts (such as methamphetamines) should remain illegal.

After poring over virtual reams of government web sites, I can say that the majority of the government employees working on the drug problem (whether with the ONDCP, USDOJ, NIDA, DEA, FBI, BOP; or as police officers, judges, and politicians) truly seem to have good intentions under U.S. drug policy. However, it is sometimes difficult to look objectively at an issue from within the framework of bureaucratic policy without seeing the cracks forming in the big picture. The current system does not accurately account for all its myriad failures and unintended consequences. A system that works does not need to resort to propaganda and misinformation to claim “victory.” As much as possible, policy should be determined on the basis of scientific studies and surveys assessing the efficacy of alternative approaches.

 ¹Anti-Terrorism Quote: “If you quit drugs, you join the fight against terror in America.” (President George W. Bush, quoted on the Anti-Drug home page, http://theantidrug.com/)

 ²Obesity deaths: From a 1999 study: “approximately 280,000 adult deaths in the United States each year are attributable to obesity.” (Statistics on overweight and obesity. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Disease. 4Mar03. Citing: Allison DB, Fontaine KR, et al. Annual deaths attributable to obesity in the United States. JAMA. 1999;282(16):1530-1538. http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/nutrit/pubs/statobes.htm.)

 ³Prison Statistics: From 1970-2003, the federal prison population went from 20,686 to 163,493. Drug offenses went from 16.3% of the federal prison population in 1970 to 55% in 2003. (Quick Facts Page. 20Feb03. http://www.bop.gov/.)

 ⁴Prisons Overflowing: In 1999 State prisons were at 101% of highest capacity, while Federal prisons were at 132% of highest capacity. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin: Prisoners in 1999. August 2000. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p99.pdf.)

 ⁵What Americans Spend on Illicit Drugs: Americans spent $66 billion on illicit drugs in 1998. (What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs 1988-1998. Office of National Drug Control Policy. December 2000. http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/spending_drugs_1988_1998.pdf.)

 ⁶Government Spending on Drug Abuse: In 2002, $19.2 billion dollars was the recommended funding for drug control by the Federal Government (National Drug Control Budget Executive Summary FY 2002. http://www.csdp.org/research/budget_fy2002.pdf.) In 1991, state and local governments spent $15.9 billion on drug control (Drugs and Crime Data. Fact Sheet: Drug Data Summary. Office of National Drug Control Policy. June 1995. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/dds1.pdf.)

 ⁷Racism: In 1998, drug offenders convicted in state courts were 53% black and 46% white, and 1% other. Of these convictions, 74% of black males and 67% of white males were incarcerated; 68% of black females and 60% of white females were incarcerated. Average incarceration time was 34 months for black males, 27 months for white males, 31 months for black females, and 20 months for white females. (State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 1998. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. December 2001.  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/scscf98.pdf)

 ⁸Drug Problems Continuing to Rise: “From 1988 to 1997, the number of juvenile drug violation cases increased 125%.” (Juvenile Court Statistics, 1997. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/180864.pdf.) “From 1990 to 1999, the number of drug-related episodes in hospital emergency departments nationwide increased 49 percent, from 371,208 to 554,932.” (Year-End 1999 Emergency Department Data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network. Dept. of Health and Human Services. http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/DAWN/99yr-end.pdf.) “Researchers estimate that more than 50 % of defendants convicted of a drug possession will recidivate within 2 to 3 years.” (Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts, 1999. Prepared by the Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at http://www.american.edu/academic.depts/spa/justice/publications/decade1.htm.) In 2001 41.7% of Americans reported having ever used illicit drugs. (ONDCP Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse Fact Sheet. Drug Use Trends. October 2002. http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/index.html.)

 ⁹Drug-Induced Deaths: “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 19,102 people died in 1999 (or 52 such deaths per day) as the direct result of drug-induced causes. Although current CDC data are not directly comparable with prior-year estimates, there was a steady increase in drug-induced deaths between 1990 and 1998—from 9,463 to 16,926.” (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/03ndcs/3priorities.html.)

 ¹⁰Terrorist Funding from Drugs: “The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) makes an estimated $300 million annual profit from drug sales, the report estimates, while the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) is also highly reliant upon narcotics trafficking.” (http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/ja1/wwwhgl0220.html.) “…the Americans spend, we estimate, $66 billion on drugs. We know that hundreds of millions of those dollars go to organizations that have been identified as terrorist and drug-related.” (Drug Czar John Walters in an interview on Feb. 12, 2002. http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/02021202.htm.)  “…the U.S. State Department reports that 12 of the world's 25 largest terrorist groups have ties to drug traffickers around the globe.” According to Walters, at least $400 million (or 0.67%) of the $60 billion Americans spend on illicit drugs goes to terrorist groups. (Drug Czar Says Drug-Smuggling Gangs Help Fund Terrorist Groups. Associated Press story in AZCentral.com. August 30, 2002.)

 ¹¹Source Countries of Drugs: Mexico and Colombia are targeted as major cocaine producers to U.S. “Criminals in four foreign source areas produce the heroin available in the United States: South America (Colombia), Southeast Asia (principally Burma), Mexico, and Southwest Asia/Middle East (principally Afghanistan).” Currently South American and Mexican heroin sources predominate over Asian heroin. “Clandestine laboratories in California and Mexico are the primary sources of supply for methamphetamine available in the United States.” “Marijuana smuggled into the United States, whether grown in Mexico or transshipped from other Latin American source areas, accounts for most of the marijuana available in the United States. Marijuana produced in Mexico remains the most widely available. Moreover, high-potency marijuana enters the U.S. drug market from Canada. The availability of marijuana from Southeast Asia generally is limited to the West Coast. U.S. drug law enforcement reporting also suggests increased availability of domestically grown marijuana.” “Although the vast majority of MDMA [ecstasy] consumed domestically is produced in Europe, a limited number of MDMA laboratories operate in the United States.” “LSD production reportedly is centered on the West Coast, particularly in San Francisco, northern California, the Pacific Northwest, and recently the Midwest.” “PCP production is centered in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area.” (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/drug_trafficking.html.)

 “During the mid-to-late 1990s, Colombian heroin traffickers easily undermined the SEA [Southeast Asian] heroin market with a readily available supply of high-quality, low-priced white heroin.” “Throughout the 1990s, Mexico-supplied heroin continued to dominate user preferences in the Western United States.” “By 1990, Mexico was the largest supplier of marijuana to the United States.” The “Current Drug Threat” map does not mention Asia at all. (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/intel/02046/02046.html.)  “…seizure statistics continue to show strong concentrations of trafficking in a few countries; three-quarters of total seizures of all drugs, on average, take place in just five countries. Strong concentrations of seizures were found in 1997/98 in the case of opiates in Iran, China, Turkey, Pakistan and the United Kingdom; in the case of cocaine in the United States, Colombia, Mexico, Spain and Panama ; in the case of cannabis resin in Spain, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, the Netherlands and Morocco ; in the case of cannabis herb: Mexico, the United States, South Africa, Colombia and India and in the case of amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) in the United Kingdom, Thailand, the United States, China and the Netherlands.” (http://www.odccp.org/odccp/wdr_highlights_2000.html.)

 ¹²Crime and Violence Associated with Drugs: “An estimated 61,000 (16%) convicted jail inmates committed their offense to get money for drugs” (Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails. U.S. Dept. of Justice. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/duttj.htm.)

“The addictive nature of many of these drugs, their high price, and their illegality play a role in more than half the street crime in the United States.” (http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/8975.pdf.)

“Illegal drugs and violence are linked primarily through drug marketing: disputes among rival distributors, arguments, robberies involving buyers and sellers, and property crimes committed to raise drug money.” (Relationships between abuse of drugs and violence and a review of effective treatments for substance abusers. D.E. Hill et al., for the Drug Policy Subcommittee of the New Mexico Criminal and Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. 1996. http://www.cjjcc.org/download/wp21.pdf.) 

From 1960-2000 violent crimes rose from 288,460 (~159/100,000 people) to 1,424,289 (~509/100,000 people), with a high of 1,932,270 in 1992. Property crimes from 1960-2000 rose from 3,095,700 (~1710/100,000 people) to 10,181,462 (~3636/100,000 people), with a high of 12,961,100 in 1991. (Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://149.101.22.40/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/TrendsInOneVar.cfm.)

 ¹³Diamonds and Al Qaeda: “The terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden has reaped millions of dollars in the past three years from the illicit sale of diamonds mined by rebels in Sierra Leone, according to U.S. and European intelligence officials and two sources with direct knowledge of events.” (Al Qaeda Cash Tied to Diamond Trade: Sale of Gems From Sierra Leone Rebels Raised Millions, Sources Say. Douglas Farah. Washington Post Foreign Service. November 2, 2001; Page A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A27281-2001Nov1&notFound=true.)

 ¹⁴Drug-Induced Violence: Also known as psychopharmacological aggression . “Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only substance whose consumption has been shown commonly to increase aggression.” “Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, there is no research evidence to support the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner.” “Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior, but withdrawal from opiate addiction tends to exaggerate both aggressive and defensive responses to provocation.” (Relationships between abuse of drugs and violence and a review of effective treatments for substance abusers. D.E. Hill et al., for the Drug Policy Subcommittee of the New Mexico Criminal and Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. 1996. http://www.cjjcc.org/download/wp21.pdf.)

 ¹⁵Alcohol Prohibition and Crime: “The years from 1921 to 1933 were sometimes called the ‘lawless years’ because of gangsterism and the public disregard for Prohibition, which made it illegal to sell or import intoxicating beverages.” (http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/lawless.htm.)

From 1918-1933 homicide rates increased from 6.5 to 9.7 per 100,000 Americans. After 1933, when Prohibition was repealed, homicide rates dropped to lows below 5 per 100,000 for most of the 1950s. (U.S. Dept. of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm.)

 ¹⁶Drug Control in The Netherlands: “The core features of the Dutch system were established by the Baan Commission and are rooted in the concept of harm reduction, i.e., the minimization of the risks and hazards of drug use rather than the suppression of all drugs.” “On the demand side of the equation, however, a unique approach is evident; the Dutch policy approach recognizes that drug use may often just be a youthful dalliance but emphasizes compassion and treatment for those who develop drug use problems.” Between 1994-1998 18% of Dutch people had ever used marijuana, compared with 33% of Americans. In 1998 10.6% of Americans had ever used cocaine, compared with 2.4% of the Dutch. Of 14 European countries surveyed from 1996-1998, the Netherlands was 12^th in number of problem hard drug users (with 2.5/1000 inhabitants). In 1995/1996 the Netherlands had 43/100,000 inhabitants arrested on drug offenses, whereas the U.S. had 539/100,000 inhabitants arrested on drug offenses. (National Drug Policy: The Netherlands. Prepared For The Senate Special Committee On Illegal Drugs (Canada). Benjamin Dolin. Law and Government Division. 15 August 2001. Library of Parliament. http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/library-e/dolin1-e.htm#INTRODUCTION.)

Economic Costs of Drug Abuse: “The total economic cost to society of illegal drug use in 2000 was an estimated $160 billion, a 57 percent increase from 1992. The three major components of the total cost are health care costs ($14.9 billion), productivity losses ($110.5 billion), and other costs ($35.2 billion), including the cost of goods and services lost to crime, the criminal justice system, and social welfare.” (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/03ndcs/3priorities.html.)

 Length of Drug Offenses: Drug offenses result in average incarceration of 29 months. Violent offenses, including murder and rape, have average incarceration rates of 62 months. (Felony Sentences in State Courts, 1998. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. October 2001. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fssc98.pdf.)

 Drugs and Morality: "We must reduce drug use for one great moral reason: Over time, drugs rob men, women, and children of their dignity and of their character. Illegal drugs are the enemies of ambition and hope. When we fight against drugs, we fight for the souls of our fellow Americans." – President G.W. Bush (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/03ndcs/intro.html.) 

"The legality does not change the revenue that takes the form of payoffs and taxes by terrorists and criminal organizations….  The reason that drugs are illegal is because of the harm they do to individuals; particularly…they take away the ability of individuals to act as free, responsible citizens when their lives collapse down to drug using.  That's what drug legalization is about. It's about addiction and the addiction increasingly of children." (Drug Czar John Walters at a March 12, 2002 breakfast. http://www1.soc.american.edu/observer/2002/march20/dczar.html.)

 Bureaucratic Self-Perpetuation: “Bureaucracies are famously self-protective, but this document will depart from standard government practice by conceding that our drug fighting institutions have not worked as effectively as they should.” (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/03ndcs/intro.html.)

Failure of Drug Control Policy: “Efforts to greatly reduce the flow of illicit drugs from abroad into the United States have so far not succeeded. Moreover, over the past decade, worldwide production of illicit drugs has increased dramatically….” (Drug Control: International Policy and Options. Raphael F. Perl. CRS Issue Brief for Congress. December 12, 2001. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7939.pdf.)

What Would People Do if Drugs Were Legalized: “When asked whether they would use cannabis more frequently if it were legal, 14 per cent said that they 'definitely' or 'probably' would. Ninety-one per cent of those who currently use cannabis weekly said that they would use more cannabis if it were made legal.” “Twenty-nine per cent of those who have never used cannabis cite the illegality of cannabis as their reason for never using the drug.” “Only 5 per cent of those who have ceased using the drug gave as a reason for stopping, the fact that they were afraid of being caught by the police. Only 4 per cent stated that they ceased using cannabis because they feared going to prison.” “Although concern about the illegal status of cannabis was frequently cited as a reason for not using it, the most common reason cited for never using cannabis or for no longer using it were anticipated or actual dislike of the drug (47 per cent and 52 per cent, respectively).” (Media Release: Does Prohibition Deter Cannabis Use? Australian Bureau of Crime and Statistics Research. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/bocsar1.nsf/pages/media220801.)