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.