President Obama must end the failed Drug War

The United States alone spends some $40 billion each year on trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. It arrests 1.5m of its citizens each year for drug offences, locking up half a million of them; tougher drug laws are the main reason why one in five black American men spend some time behind bars. In the developing world blood is being shed at an astonishing rate. In Mexico more than 800 policemen and soldiers have been killed since December 2006 (and the annual overall death toll is running at over 6,000)...far from reducing crime, prohibition has fostered gangsterism on a scale that the world has never seen before. According to the UNs perhaps inflated estimate, the illegal drug industry is worth some $320 billion a year. In the West it makes criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens (the current American president could easily have ended up in prison for his youthful experiments with blow). It also makes drugs more dangerous: addicts buy heavily adulterated cocaine and heroin; many use dirty needles to inject themselves, spreading HIV; the wretches who succumb to crack or meth are outside the law, with only their pushers to treat them. But it is countries in the emerging world that pay most of the price. Even a relatively developed democracy such as Mexico now finds itself in a life-or-death struggle against gangsters. American officials, including a former drug tsar, have publicly worried about having a narco state as their neighbour.

Legalisation would not only drive away the gangsters; it would transform drugs from a law-and-order problem into a public-health problem, which is how they ought to be treated. Governments would tax and regulate the drug trade, and use the funds raised (and the billions saved on law-enforcement) to educate the public about the risks of drug-taking and to treat addiction. The sale of drugs to minors should remain banned. Different drugs would command different levels of taxation and regulation. This system would be fiddly and imperfect, requiring constant monitoring and hard-to-measure trade-offs. Post-tax prices should be set at a level that would strike a balance between damping down use on the one hand, and discouraging a black market and the desperate acts of theft and prostitution to which addicts now resort to feed their habits.

There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer. Embarrassed drug warriors blame this on alleged cultural differences, but even in fairly similar countries tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates. Legalisation might reduce both supply (pushers by definition push) and demand (part of that dangerous thrill would go). Nobody knows for certain. But it is hard to argue that sales of any product that is made cheaper, safer and more widely available would fall. Any honest proponent of legalisation would be wise to assume that drug-taking as a whole would rise.

There are two main reasons for arguing that prohibition should be scrapped all the same. The first is one of liberal principle. Although some illegal drugs are extremely dangerous to some people, most are not especially harmful. (Tobacco is more addictive than virtually all of them.) Most consumers of illegal drugs, including cocaine and even heroin, take them only occasionally. They do so because they derive enjoyment from them (as they do from whisky or a Marlboro Light). It is not the states job to stop them from doing so.

What about addiction? That is partly covered by this first argument, as the harm involved is primarily visited upon the user. But addiction can also inflict misery on the families and especially the children of any addict, and involves wider social costs. That is why discouraging and treating addiction should be the priority for drug policy. Hence the second argument: legalisation offers the opportunity to deal with addiction properly.

By providing honest information about the health risks of different drugs, and pricing them accordingly, governments could steer consumers towards the least harmful ones. Prohibition has failed to prevent the proliferation of designer drugs, dreamed up in laboratories. Legalisation might encourage legitimate drug companies to try to improve the stuff that people take. The resources gained from tax and saved on repression would allow governments to guarantee treatment to addicts—a way of making legalisation more politically palatable. The success of developed countries in stopping people smoking tobacco, which is similarly subject to tax and regulation, provides grounds for hope.
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=13237193

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• marijuana
• legalization
• president
• Obama
• Barack
• Mexico
• drug
• war
• czar
• Mexican
• failed
• Narco
• State
• cocaine
• heroin
• cannabis
• legalize
• black
• African
• American
• incarceration
• rate
• crack

[hackslate]

Legalize it for the love of God. Why are people so dumb?

[RyanR3volution]

@KripDrip

You got me all wrong. Decriminalization is a silly idea, it gives the gov the authority to control and recriminalize cannabis at any time, it does not deal with organized crime, it does not create a free market, does not allow the manufacturing of it, ... its a goofy concept. All drugs must be legalized and treated like alcohol, we need to follow the Constitution and respect the right of the individual to own their body. I made a vid on decrim vs legalization if you want to check it.

[cpnes41]

For such a "proclaimed" great public speaker, he cant seem to shake that uhh bug. Dude cant get through a single sentence without drop 3 uhh's or umm's... kinda pathetic mr. president...

[capone6080]

@KripDrip no that's why it needs to all be 100% legal.

[capone6080]

All the drug Czars are a bunch of morons.

[nerakalove]

At least there decriminalizing Marijuana everywhere. . . i hope

[EcrossH]

My money is that powerful pharmaceutical corporations are the reason why drugs are illegal. In America, billionaires and corporations run the government, the military, law enforcement. It is time we take our government back for the PEOPLE.

Hyper/big-corporation capitalism is HARMFUL because widespread social, economic, and environmental problems are PROFITABLE because these gorilla-sized corporations beat down any new business that presents SOLUTIONS to these problems. FUCK THEM ALL.

[hardkoregamer999]

@KripDrip legalization is better this shit needs to be run by the goverment not by druglord criminals.

[Boostnitup]

Legalize marijuana on Prop 19.

California will face Obama's pit bull Eric Holder and will have to make the choice if he wants to lose a possibility of gaining the electorate votes in California for the 2012 election.

California has to take the lead on overturning the lie of "Reefer Madness" the movie, and the protection of Randolph Hearst.