Drugs: The Legalization Debate

[carl]

The Nov 13 2008 issue of Rolling Stone magazine has an interesting article about this subject by a reporter who tried to interview one of the major narcos and didn't get killed for the attempt.

The author points out that our drug policy can be described as asking other countries not to sell us something we very much want; which results in a lot of Mexicans getting killed.

He further states that the we should be talking about the one thing that can really put a stop to all this: legalization. I agree with him.

[reed11b]

Most correctional officers would agree with that as well.
Reed

[selil]

Prohibition has rarely worked unless the item could be tied to imminent danger and even then excused. Blowfish anybody? There is a huge body of literature that looks at the use of behavior/puritan law systems as a means of controlling subject populations. The fact that prohibition is enacted is more important than the items that are prohibited. (e.g) highly punitive drunk driving laws, restricting the driving age, creating a population of convicts has done nothing to stop drunk driving deaths in America. The numbers fluctuate more based on the economy than enactment of punitive laws.

[carl]

Since mere possession and use is such a minor offense, in most places, as to be no offense at all; we have in effect legitimatized the market for drugs. So our drug policy states the market is legitimate but serving that market is not. Which is a little screwy. It can't work. And that leads to foreign cops and soldiers dying in large numbers trying to stop their countrymen from selling us something we really really want. Which is not only screwy but dishonorable.

A small point but one of the reasons for drug prohibition is to make sure the potential economic contribution of users isn't lost. From observation I believe most of those people will never contribute in any event so we are trying to preserve something that isn't there in the first place.

[reed11b]

Since mere possession and use is such a minor offense, in most places, as to be no offense at all; we have in effect legitimatized the market for drugs. So our drug policy states the market is legitimate but serving that market is not. Which is a little screwy. It can't work. And that leads to foreign cops and soldiers dying in large numbers trying to stop their countrymen from selling us something we really really want. Which is not only screwy but dishonorable.

A small point but one of the reasons for drug prohibition is to make sure the potential economic contribution of users isn't lost. From observation I believe most of those people will never contribute in any event so we are trying to preserve something that isn't there in the first place.

Unfortunately, that simply is not true. Prisons are filled with individuals who’s crime is “simple possession”. In fact, due to the mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenses, when overcrowding occurs, it is thieves, burglars, and assault convicted criminals that will be released first. Simply being associated with a dealer or even a user is now a felony in most states. The point about the contribution of the individuals is erroneous as well and plays on the stereotype of the typical drug user being nearly homeless and stealing car stereos to feed there addiction. The actual majority of drug abusers maintain fairly steady work and manage to meet there basic needs. Many of the individuals that fall into the stereotype were already at an economic disadvantage or have MH issues. Remember super addictive crack? It wasn’t, not any more then cocaine. Crack was cheaper and more available in area’s were people were already socially on the edge. Most “common sense” knowledge about drugs is simply not true.
Reed

[carl]

Unfortunately, that simply is not true. Prisons are filled with individuals who’s crime is “simple possession”. In fact, due to the mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenses, when overcrowding occurs, it is thieves, burglars, and assault convicted criminals that will be released first. Simply being associated with a dealer or even a user is now a felony in most states. The point about the contribution of the individuals is erroneous as well and plays on the stereotype of the typical drug user being nearly homeless and stealing car stereos to feed there addiction. The actual majority of drug abusers maintain fairly steady work and manage to meet there basic needs. Many of the individuals that fall into the stereotype were already at an economic disadvantage or have MH issues. Remember super addictive crack? It wasn’t, not any more then cocaine. Crack was cheaper and more available in area’s were people were already socially on the edge. Most “common sense” knowledge about drugs is simply not true.
Reed

In the state in which I worked, possession of very small amounts of marijuana resulted in a simple ticket, if the officer even bothered. If I remember correctly, possession of any amount of cocaine or heroin was charged as a felony, but whether if was vigorously prosecuted as such was another matter. For a first offender or a rich guy, good luck. So I would continue to argue that simple possession and use aren't really penalized. (One thing to consider also is if you can't get a guy for what you really want him for, and he happened to have some drugs on him, you get him for that and that is what the stat will be.)

The users and addicts I saw didn't make any economic contribution to society and in my view never will no matter what. I only rarely saw the ones who were able to function more or less normally. That they were able to carry on without a fuss meant they would never come to our attention. I agree with you about these people being the majority of drug users. What that means is use of prohibited drugs really doesn't have anything to do with whether you are going to be a productive member of society. You are or you're not.

Also agree with you completely about "common sense" knowledge about drugs.

As noted already, the "drug war" takes away from other police work, the kind with victims who complain. Money always seemed to be available for drug stuff but was not so much for burglars.

[Bill Moore]

There is a huge body of literature that looks at the use of behavior/puritan law systems as a means of controlling subject populations. selil

The War on Drugs is a war of our making that has caused great harm to our country and others. The saddest part is that it has only made the problem worse in many respects. Unfortunately, the war supports a number of government cottage industries now, and as Selil implied it still has strong support from the influencial Christian Right, so it will be interesting to see if a politician can develop enough political support to end it. Perhaps when the new administration swears in, they can take it upon themselves to make this part of their change agenda, they might have enough political strength to weather the propaganda storm that will attack them.

Failures:

1. Like the war on terror (a tactic) we have no strategy for the war on drugs. You can't wage a war on a commodity, so instead we are waging war on an economic system that results in undesired effects on social and political systems.

2. Targeting the leadership of drug organizations only assists their competitors, it does little to decrease the flow of illegal drugs, it only changes the names of the players involved.

3. As stated in numerous posts, we are not impacting the demand for this commodity, so by enactng tough laws we not only destroy the potential for an incredible tax base (assuming we legalize marijuana), we also created a huge and powerful underground economy that undermines the legitimate economy and government. During prohibition Capone made millions of dollars providing a commodity that the above ground economy couldn't. This gave Capone the power to buy cops, lawyers, judges, and if they couldn't be bought, hit men could. Prohibition gave guys and organizations like Capone's the power to subvert the government. This is exactly what we're seeing in Latin America (the corruption is spreading), especially Mexico, Central Asia, and increasingly in parts of Africa. They are not only narcoterrorists, but they are a narcostate (like a parallel universe).

4. Trillions of dollars generated from this trade has resulted in severe corruption, the raise of paramilitaries that can challenge the State, State protection for criiminals in some cases, etc. Mexico is only one case, and the results of this failed strategy are now seriously effecting our national security.

5. If we effectively marginalize one drug, another one takes it place (meth for example), so again the real issue is the demand side, the market always wins. We can either exploit it by regulating and taxing it, thus shifting the profits from the narcoterrorists to legitimate business men and the State. Before you jump on your high horse, we have legal tobacco and alcohol industries, or continue to make the situation worse. How many more prisons do we need to build?

I think we're past the myth that marijuana is a gateway drug, and I wonder what would happen if Marijuana was legalized, regulated and taxed? Would it undermine the demand for other drugs? We could make the penalties tougher for the other drugs if the market provided an alternative. Would it dry up the bank accounts of the narcoterrorists? Without their money, how much power would they be able to generate? You could call this leg of the strategy shifting the wealth.

I'm a realist, the narcoterrorist organizations must be destroyed, but until we destroy the lucrative market for illegal drugs (unforunately that probably means we'll have to provide legal ones), our current tactical efforts will have only result in a temporary impact at most. Once we have a strategy for undermining market demand, we can aggressively pursue destroying the narcoterrorist organizations with strict population and resource control measures.

[Uboat509]

Would it undermine the demand for other drugs? We could make the penalties tougher for the other drugs if the market provided an alternative. Would it dry up the bank accounts of the narcoterrorists? Without their money, how much power would they be able to generate? You could call this leg of the strategy shifting the wealth.

This argument is predicated on the idea that all illegal drugs are equal. They are not. You are going to have a hard time selling anyone on the idea of marijuana as an "alternative" for crack cocaine or methamphetamines, least of all to the addicts. I doubt very much that the difficulty in procuring pot was a factor in getting people addicted to crack cocaine or methamphetamines. Conversely, I doubt that an abundance of legally available marijuana is going to make much difference in dealing with harder drugs and unless I have been misinformed, hard drugs are where the narco-terrorists make their money. Unless you are prepared to legalize those then you aren't going to really have that much effect on their bottom line.

SFC W

[davidbfpo]

A panel of experts and ex-dignitaries have issued a report:

The Global Commission on Drug Policy report calls for the legalisation of some drugs and an end to the criminalisation of drug users.

"Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won"....

...Instead of punishing users who the report says "do no harm to others," the commission argues that governments should end criminalisation of drug use, experiment with legal models that would undermine organised crime syndicates and offer health and treatment services for drug-users.

It calls for drug policies based on methods empirically proven to reduce crime and promote economic and social development.

Link to BBC report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13624303

Curiously the BBC story has a photo of a field of poppies in Afghanistan and in the background a right-hand drive military vehicle, which looks like a Land Rover and UK military aboard. Why curious? It is the first time I've seen that image on BBC News; normally it is an issue preferably out of sight.

[davidbfpo]

I admit not to watching the series, but the article's title did get my attention, in full: 'The nonsense of a 'War on Drugs': The Wire's writers get it, governments consistently don't'.

Within the article are some promising links on reputable studies into the issues and the script writers remarked:

[The US government's war on drugs is] nothing more or less than a war on our underclass, succeeding only in transforming our democracy into the jailingest nation on the planet.

Link:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to...istently-dont/

[carl]

The problem in the US is that the politics of the drug business are rock solid stable. The politicians and most of the electorate get to preen with moral superiority because we are tough on drugs. The drug warriors get plenty of money and something interesting to do. The drug users get access to drugs and the monetary cost is low. Drug users with political and social influence don't have to worry about their drug use embarrassing them or inconveniencing them (except for occasional sacrificial lambs like Robert Downey Jr., when was the last time a star went up or for that matter, when was the last time a CEO or State Supreme Court justice went up). Drug traffickers get rich. The underclass have to live in bad neighborhoods but so many of them are hoods or related to hoods there isn't that much interest in changing things. There is even a political constituency built around prisons that would be upset if the number of prisons were reduced. Everybody is pretty happy.

This is a stable and practical system that has existed for decades and there is no domestic reason for it to change. The only way change will come is from without. If it does come it will come I am guessing from Mexico. What would shake things up is if the Mexicans legalized drugs or drug transhipment and export. That would cause a stir. Otherwise nothing will change.

[ganulv]

Frontline has a good gateway to Drug War-related content.

Just my opinion, but I don’t see there to be any unproblematic plausible outcomes in relation to drug trade-related policy, only less worse possible outcomes. Americans like to think things can be put right—either the Drug War is going to create a world without drugs or legalization is going to eliminate all recreational drug-associated suffering. What did Voltaire say? “The perfect is the enemy of the less worse” or something like that?