Myth 1
Money allegedly saved from giving up on the drug problem could be better spent on education and social problems.

This is readily disputed. Unlike what critics of American drug policy would have you believe, all of those funds did not go to enforcement policy only. Those funds were used for treatment, education and prevention, as well as enforcement. Within that $18.8 billion budget, the amount of money Congress appropriated for the Drug Enforcement Administration was roughly $1.6 billion, a sum that the Defense Department runs through about every day-and-a-half or two days .

Myth 2
Individuals' drug abuse is not a problem to society.

In reality, drug abuse drives some of America's most costly social problems including domestic violence, child abuse, chronic mental illness, the spread of AIDS and homelessness. Drug treatment costs, hospitalization for long-term drug-related disease and treatment of the consequences of family violence burden our already strapped health care system.

Myth 3
If the social and legal sanctions against drugs were removed, many experts estimate that the number of illicit drug users would remain the same.

Actually, experts estimate that the illicit drug user population would at least double if the social and legal sanctions against drugs were removed. Legalization would result in skyrocketing costs that would be paid by American taxpayers and consumers. For example, a 1994 article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that if cocaine were legalized, it was probable that the number of cocaine addicts in America would increase from 2 million to at least 20 million. As this estimation suggests, legalization would significantly increase drug use and addiction, along with the associated social costs.

Myth 4
Drug legalization would eliminate criminal elements in the drug trade.

No. Under a legalization scenario, a black market for drugs would still exist. If drugs were legal for those over 18 or 21, there would be a market for everyone under that age. People under the age of 21 consume the majority of illegal drugs, and so an illegal market and organized crime to supply it would remain—along with the organized crime that profits from it. After Prohibition ended, did the organized crime in our country go down? No. It continues today in a variety of other criminal enterprises. Legalization would not put the cartels out of business; cartels would simply look to other illegal endeavors.

Myth 5
Legalization would decrease society's health care costs.

On the contrary, legalization would only increase society's health care costs. Treatment, insurance, rehabilitation, social and welfare costs all would skyrocket, not to mention the misery and addiction that would accompany outright legalization of drugs.

Myth 6
Education, health care, road building and a wide array of other worthwhile causes would benefit from the money that could be raised by legalizing drugs and taxing them. 

This is just not true. Addiction leads to an inability to work and higher unemployment numbers lead to increased cost of health and welfare benefits for the unemployed. Experts predict that drug treatment costs, hospitalization for long-term drug-related disease and treatment of the consequences of family violence would further burden our already strapped health care system. Perhaps even more important are the increased costs that would be incurred through the damaging social and emotional effects of drugs.

Myth 7
A drug legalization scenario that included needle handout programs would eliminate new HIV infections contracted through the use of shared and dirty needles.

No. It's not that simple. Research sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) has shown that drug use interferes with judgment about sexual (and other) behavior, making it more likely that users have unplanned and unprotected sex. This places them at increased risk for contracting HIV from infected sex partners.

Myth 8
Government legalization, distribution and regulation of drugs would remove the profit and the incentive for illicit drug dealing and related crime.

While "government drugs" could conceivably be priced low enough to eliminate competition, perhaps by having taxpayers subsidize them to discourage a black market, the combination of low price and wide availability would result in greater consumption, and consequently increased addiction. Increased consumption and addiction lead to drug-related crime. This government regulation argument ignores the dangerously addictive nature of drugs. And finally, u nder a legalization scenario, a black market for drugs would still exist. If drugs were legal for those over 18 or 21, there would be a market for everyone under that age --a faction of the population that can be targeted by those looking to profit from the sale of drugs.