It’s tempting to believe that the president has been consistently giving short “no” answers every time this question comes up simply because it is a political minefield to tread across.  For a first term president, openly seeking to reverse a drug policy that has been virtually unchanged in over 70 years is a risky move.  He seems to be a man who understands that lasting changes take patience and hard work to accomplish.

As 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 marijuana.  The nomination of Gil Kerlikowske as “drug czar,” and Eric Holder’s statements about allowing states to determine medicial marijuana policy seem to be moves in the right direction, while not expressly advocating legalization.

Unfortunately, it is unclear which marijuana policy we will actually get; the one where individual states are allowed to set their own drug policies that has spurred movements in California and Oregon, or the one where the president glibly belittles the online audience – whose interaction he encouraged – for believing this is an important issue that needs a more nuanced discussion in Washington than “just say no.”

In spite of Attorney General Holder’s recent statements, DEA agents raided a licensed medical marijuana dispensary in San Francisco this week, confusing those of us who have been watching this story with some modicum of hope.  It remains to be seen how much the federal approach to marijuana will actually change.

With over 20 million arrests for marijuana in the last 45 years, and an estimated $77 billion in lost taxes and wasted spending every year on an endless “war,” the time has come to have some serious debate and find a reasonable middle ground on this issue.

Arizona’s attorney general is talking potential legalization, and living in a border state he recognizes that this is not just an American problem.  He says that over 75% of the money that Mexican drug cartels take in comes from marijuana, most of that from the United States.  Secretary of State Clinton acknowledged U.S. complicity in the recent violence in Mexico this week, citing our “insatiable demand” for illegal drugs.  Yet in the face of all of this, President Obama laughs at the idea of eliminating the major source of funding for these criminal organizations.

“Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere.”
-President George Washington, on cannabis

“Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country.”
-President Thomas Jefferson, on cannabis

“When I was a kid I inhaled frequently. That was the point.”
-President Barack Obama, on cannabis

“I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”
-President Franklin D. Roosevelt, on public political pressure

CNN is reporting that NORML’s fundraising has quadrupled in the 24 hours following the president’s dismissive response.  If there’s ever going to be a serious debate, much less a change in policy, it will only come as a result of We, The People making them do it.

Vice President Joe Biden said recently;

“Since the beginning of last year, there have been nearly 7,000 drug-related murders in Mexico. If we had said that years ago, we would have looked at each other like we were crazy.  Violent drug trafficking organizations are threatening both the United States and Mexican communities.”

While the Mexican government has been deploying thousands of troops to border towns like Ciudad Juarez, U.S. governors in border states are becoming increasingly concerned, including Texas governor Rick Perry who recently made an “urgent call” for 1,000 additional National Guard troops to be deployed to his state to assist with securing the border.

President Barack Obama said recently that several states have requested additional deployments, although according to a Pentagon spokesperson they have not yet been ordered to move any troops to the border.  The president has said he has no interest in “militarizing the border,” and there has been no discussion of sending U.S. troops into Mexico.  However, the Mexican government currently has 5 helicopers, a Marine surveillance vehicle and handheld scanners on loan from the U.S.

Obama and Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met earlier this month in anticipation of Mullen’s recent trip to Mexico.  The White House is eager to assist in stablizing the region, and has been mobilizing all resources to address the problem.  Secretary of State Clinton will be in Mexico later this month.  A House subcommittee is expected to question Department of Homeland Security officials in an attempt to address potential dangers to our citizens at home in upcoming hearings.

Mexican government officials share their own concerns about their neighbor in all this – turns out, the majority of the weapons being used in attacks in Mexico have been of U.S. origin.  Juarez Mayor Jose Reyes Ferriz told CNN that two .50-caliber rifles were confiscated during a recent raid, both of which were purchased via the Internet, from the U.S., citing an example of the easily availability of heavy military-grade firearms to those with the cash.  Mexican officials are increasing pressure on the U.S. to clamp down on the flow of firearms across the border.

Despite a recent U.S. State Department travel alert which compared the fighting between the cartels and local authorities to “small-unit combat,” Mexico’s tourism chief reports no decrease in tourism as a result of the increased killings.  According to him, Mexico is perfectly safe as long as you avoid the “zones that are not safe.”  Well, now I feel better.

It’s easy to get bogged down in the details, and the numbers.  Safe zones and unsafe zones, so many deaths, so many soldiers, so much cash – Forbes added Joaquin Guzman Loera, the head of the Sinaloa drug cartel, to their billionaire’s list this 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 legitimize and marginalize the drug cartels if we are ever to restore peace to the border towns of either country.

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.