Is America winning the war on drugs, or are we doomed to continue to spend tens of billions of dollars a year fighting an uphill battle?
President Richard Nixon announced the “War on Drugs” in 1969, coining a phrase likely inspired by LBJ’s “War on Poverty,” and we’ve been locked in a bloody and expensive fight ever since. Leaving aside the insane notion of declaring war on everything we intend to eliminate for another article (soon the pacifists will declare the War on War), it’s hard to see the benefits of criminalization of an arbitrary set of untaxed, non-patented psychoactive substances.
To those who had eyes to see, the benefits of prohibition were a myth even in 1969 when the long and unsuccessful crusade earned it’s fancy new moniker courtesy of Nixon. We just passed the 100 year anniversary of the formation of the International Opium Commission, which made the recommendations that eventually led to global prohibition of opium in 1929 via the Treaty of Versailles. International bans on cannabis and cocaine quickly followed.
Since then, as the attempts to stop or even reduce production and consumption of illegal drugs have faltered and failed, the U.N. has picked up the cause. Over 10 years ago, the proclamation of the United Nations’ member countries was “A drug free world – we can do it.” This was after 90 years of evidence to the contrary, and this week in Vienna U.N. member nations have signed a declaration extending the failed policies of the War on Drugs for another tragic decade.
However, after a year of debate, it appears there is not yet a consensus over how to move forward. Antonio Maria Costa, the director of the United Nations Office of Drugs Crime, whose office crafted the declaration, makes the case for continuing global prohibition:
“The crime and corruption associated with the drug trade are providing strong evidence to a vocal minority of pro-drug lobbyists to argue that the cure is worse than the disease.
This would be an historical mistake, one which United Nations member states are not willing to make.
Because drug trafficking enriches criminals, destroys communities and even threatens nations, it has to be dealt with urgently and forcefully. Policy change is required against crime, not in favor of drugs.”
In the face of these assertions, some countries have indicated they will be interpreting the policies as they see fit.
Notably, President Barack Obama has sent strong signals through his words and his appointments that American policies will be shifting. As noted by the Guardian, Obama’s nomination of Gil Kerlikowske to be the nation’s “drug czar” could hint at a shift in drug policy, given Kerlikowske’s emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation over prosecution during his 8 years as Seattle’s police chief. Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced that the Justice Department will cease raiding medical marijuana providers that are established legally under state law, fulfilling Obama’s campaign promise.
In the face of a White House that respects the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution, California’s assembly is debating AB 390, which would essentially legalize marijuana in the state – a short step from the current prescription system which in reality is essentially a licensing program.
No one can deny that total legalization of drugs – an end to the War on Drugs – would bring new and interesting problems for consumer nations like the U.S. and Europe, but as The Economist argues, legalization is the “least bad” solution.
5 Responses
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1884956,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
Posted on March 13th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Thanks for the link, Maeghanne!
I overheard a bit of debate on the California bill (AB 390) on the radio on the drive home. It occurs to me, these sorts of measures would have a lot more public support if we were to include *stronger* penalties for selling to minors in the legalization bill. So far, the loudest argument seems to be “won’t someone please think of the children!,” to quote Mrs. Lovejoy…
I think we can all agree that we don’t want children using drugs or alcohol. 18 might be a better age for legalized self-mind-altering consent than 21, but it’s not a hill I’m going to die on, which reinforces my point; when drafting revolutionary legislation, you’ve got to predict the opposition’s arguments and address them in the text of the bill. “Throw ‘em a bone.”
I’d be willing to support making the sale of drugs or alcohol to minors a felony, as draconian as that may sound (currently a small fine and/or community service is imposed, tiered based on number of offenses), but it’s hard for the “what about the children?!” crowd to argue with a bill that supports *increased* penalties for sales of intoxicating substances to minors.
Posted on March 13th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Damn! I love to hear the words “every society in the history of mankind has had some form of mind-altering, sometimes addictive substances to use, to misuse, abuse or get addicted to. Get used to it.” come from a Judge’s mouth. Times are a changing! Putting an age limit, taxes and legislature on marijuana would be ginormous (I know it’s not a real word, but so what!) win! I wonder if a lot of the boost of marijuana approvals goes to Anheiser-Busch selling to the Belgians. Last I checked they put the most money into keeping marijuana illegal. If all drugs are legal- South America is no longer a massive blood stain of drug wars, gangs are depleted, the same amount of people that use drugs are the same amount of people that use drugs (it’s not like they are hard to get now!), prisons empty, TREATMENT CENTERS get more funding from the sales of legal drugs, safer doses can be accessible, guilt and shame leave drug addicts…allowing safer and easier recoveries and BLACK MARKET MONEY IS NOW DISTRIBUTED BACK TO THE PEOPLE! I’m not saying I support drug use, in fact quite the opposite. I think hard drugs, can cause severe psychological, physical and even spiritual damage. But, why should people who are hurting themselves be hurt even more? Taking away husbands from their wives, children and vice-versa; that is just not right. Even Islamic people recognize that taking a man away from his children is wrong. Ironically they think any crime is eye for an eye, so how does one punish someone who hasn’t hurt anyone?
Makes you think.
Where did America go wrong?
Why do we fight wars that has no territory to conquer?
Drugs, Terrorism…even world hunger, can not be won.
Why?
Drugs are not going away, as the good judge said “Get used to it!”.
Posted on March 14th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
[...] year, “self-made” in the “shipping” industry. Our continuation of the failed War on Drugs is no small part of this mess, and by now it should be clear we have no option other than to [...]
Posted on March 16th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
[...] noted recently, Obama’s approach to the war on drugs is appearing to show signs of a gentle path towards decriminalization or at least tolerance of [...]
Posted on March 28th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Add A Comment