Excellent article on legalisation of drugs

[Christien]

I'm not sure if this belongs in PARF, because it's not really political or religious, (that's one of the points of the article, in fact) though I do realize the issue easily gets politicized. Maybe I'm posting here in reg. OT in the hope that any ensuing discussion will NOT simply follow dogmatic political principals, but mods if you feel necessary to move this, please do so.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=13237193

Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution

A HUNDRED years ago a group of foreign diplomats gathered in Shanghai for the first-ever international effort to ban trade in a narcotic drug. On February 26th 1909 they agreed to set up the International Opium Commission—just a few decades after Britain had fought a war with China to assert its right to peddle the stuff. Many other bans of mood-altering drugs have followed. In 1998 the UN General Assembly committed member countries to achieving a “drug-free world” and to “eliminating or significantly reducing” the production of opium, cocaine and cannabis by 2008.

That is the kind of promise politicians love to make. It assuages the sense of moral panic that has been the handmaiden of prohibition for a century. It is intended to reassure the parents of teenagers across the world. Yet it is a hugely irresponsible promise, because it cannot be fulfilled.

Next week ministers from around the world gather in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. Like first-world-war generals, many will claim that all that is needed is more of the same. In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.

“Least bad” does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain.
The evidence of failure

Nowadays the UN Office on Drugs and Crime no longer talks about a drug-free world. Its boast is that the drug market has “stabilised”, meaning that more than 200m people, or almost 5% of the world’s adult population, still take illegal drugs—roughly the same proportion as a decade ago. (Like most purported drug facts, this one is just an educated guess: evidential rigour is another casualty of illegality.) The production of cocaine and opium is probably about the same as it was a decade ago; that of cannabis is higher. Consumption of cocaine has declined gradually in the United States from its peak in the early 1980s, but the path is uneven (it remains higher than in the mid-1990s), and it is rising in many places, including Europe.

This is not for want of effort. 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). This week yet another leader of a troubled drug-ridden country—Guinea Bissau—was assassinated.

Yet prohibition itself vitiates the efforts of the drug warriors. The price of an illegal substance is determined more by the cost of distribution than of production. Take cocaine: the mark-up between coca field and consumer is more than a hundredfold. Even if dumping weedkiller on the crops of peasant farmers quadruples the local price of coca leaves, this tends to have little impact on the street price, which is set mainly by the risk of getting cocaine into Europe or the United States.

Nowadays the drug warriors claim to seize close to half of all the cocaine that is produced. The street price in the United States does seem to have risen, and the purity seems to have fallen, over the past year. But it is not clear that drug demand drops when prices rise. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that the drug business quickly adapts to market disruption. At best, effective repression merely forces it to shift production sites. Thus opium has moved from Turkey and Thailand to Myanmar and southern Afghanistan, where it undermines the West’s efforts to defeat the Taliban.
Al Capone, but on a global scale

Indeed, far from reducing crime, prohibition has fostered gangsterism on a scale that the world has never seen before. According to the UN’s 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.

The failure of the drug war has led a few of its braver generals, especially from Europe and Latin America, to suggest shifting the focus from locking up people to public health and “harm reduction” (such as encouraging addicts to use clean needles). This approach would put more emphasis on public education and the treatment of addicts, and less on the harassment of peasants who grow coca and the punishment of consumers of “soft” drugs for personal use. That would be a step in the right direction. But it is unlikely to be adequately funded, and it does nothing to take organised crime out of the picture.

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.

Selling even this flawed system to people in producer countries, where organised crime is the central political issue, is fairly easy. The tough part comes in the consumer countries, where addiction is the main political battle. Plenty of American parents might accept that legalisation would be the right answer for the people of Latin America, Asia and Africa; they might even see its usefulness in the fight against terrorism. But their immediate fear would be for their own children.

That fear is based in large part on the presumption that more people would take drugs under a legal regime. That presumption may be wrong. 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 state’s job to stop them from doing so.

(continued)

[Christien]

(continued)

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.
A calculated gamble, or another century of failure?

This newspaper first argued for legalisation 20 years ago. Reviewing the evidence again, prohibition seems even more harmful, especially for the poor and weak of the world. Legalisation would not drive gangsters completely out of drugs; as with alcohol and cigarettes, there would be taxes to avoid and rules to subvert. Nor would it automatically cure failed states like Afghanistan. Our solution is a messy one; but a century of manifest failure argues for trying it.

[legion]

I think you will surprisingly find most liberals and conservatives united on this issue. Prohibition has failed. Prohibitions always fails.

The best way to get people not to do something is to attach a social stigma to it. Passing laws against it can often have the opposite effect.

The biggest hurdle to getting this overturned is not the politicians. It is the entrenched bureaucracy that is dependent on the "War on Drugs" for funding. The DEA and local police agencies will fight this tooth and nail as they get significant funding (and the ability to buy fun toys like armored vehicles and fully-automatic weapons) to fight this "war".

[einreb]

Originally Posted by legion

I think you will surprisingly find most liberals and conservatives united on this issue. Prohibition has failed. Prohibitions always fails.

The best way to get people not to do something is to attach a social stigma to it. Passing laws against it can often have the opposite effect.

The biggest hurdle to getting this overturned is not the politicians. It is the entrenched bureaucracy that is dependent on the "War on Drugs" for funding. The DEA and local police agencies will fight this tooth and nail as they get significant funding (and the ability to buy fun toys like armored vehicles and fully-automatic weapons) to fight this "war".

Yup.

There are a lot of people interested in the money that revolves around fighting the 'war on drugs'... lets not forget the business of prisons, defense lawyers, local law enforcement communities that get funding help, local governments that confiscate drug related items (cars/money/etc). Lots of influence there.

[cairns]

I've been advocating this for as long as I can remember. It amazes me we don't legalize and tax (solves that pesky deficit problem in one year). Crime goes down by huge amounts; police could concentrate on real crime and terrorists threats etc. Only pol with courage on this issue I know of is Ah-nuld.

Obama could do this- he has the capital- but I doubt he has the balls.

[targa911S]

At the very least, legalize weed. It's already the #1 cash crop in the U.S. Why have all that revenue be underground and not taxable?

[Christien]

This is interesting - from wikipedia, on the repeal of prohibition in 1933:

Many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Racketeering happened when powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies. Stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle. The cost of enforcing Prohibition was high, and the lack of tax revenues on alcohol (some $500 million annually nationwide) affected government coffers. When repeal of Prohibition occurred in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market alcohol profits in most states (states still had the right to enforce their own laws concerning alcohol consumption), because of competition with low-priced alcohol sales at legal liquor stores.

Prohibition had a notable effect on the alcohol brewing industry in the United States. When Prohibition ended, only half the breweries that had previously existed reopened. The post-Prohibition period saw the introduction of the American lager style of beer, which dominates today. Wine historians also note that Prohibition destroyed what was a fledgling wine industry in the United States. Productive wine quality grape vines were replaced by lower quality vines growing thicker skinned grapes that could be more easily transported. Much of the institutional knowledge was also lost as winemakers either emigrated to other wine producing countries or left the business altogether.[12]

Despite the efforts of Heber J. Grant and the LDS Church, a Utah convention helped ratify the 21st Amendment.[13] While Utah can be considered the deciding 36th state to ratify the 21st Amendment and make it law, the day Utah passed the Amendment, both Pennsylvania and Ohio passed it as well. All 38 states that decided to hold conventions passed the Amendment, while only 36 states were needed (three fourths of the 48 that existed).

At the end of Prohibition some supporters openly admitted its failure. A quote from a letter, written in 1932 by wealthy industrialist John D. Rockefeller, Jr., states:

When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.[14]

Some historians have commented that the alcohol industry accepted stronger regulation of alcohol in the decades after repeal, as a way to reduce the chance that Prohibition would return.[15]

[creaturecat]

Canada was close to legalizing Marijuana.
Until the US government stepped in.
Actually sent their election team up here to help elect our right wing buffoon.
Now we are talking prison sentences.

[targa911S]

going to prison for a little weed is just stupid.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by targa911S

At the very least, legalize weed. It's already the #1 cash crop in the U.S. Why have all that revenue be underground and not taxable?

is it really the #1 cash crop?

some state assembly guy from SF is talking about this
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1647570.html
Smoke weed – help the state?

Marijuana would be sold and taxed openly in California to adults 21 and older if legislation proposed Monday is signed into law.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, said his bill could generate big bucks for a cash-starved state while freeing law enforcement agencies to focus on worse crimes.

"I think there's a mentality throughout the state and the country that this isn't the highest priority – and that maybe we should start to reassess," he said.

Critics counter that it makes no sense for a Legislature so concerned about health that it has restricted use of trans fats in restaurants to legalize the smoking of a potentially harmful drug.

"I think substance abuse is just ruining our society," said Assemblyman Paul Cook, R-Yucca Valley. "I can't support that."

"I think it's a slippery slope," Assemblyman Tom Berryhill, R-Modesto, said of easing pot laws. "We'll do everything we can to defeat it."

Medical use of marijuana already is legal in California, but the new legislation would go a step further by allowing recreational use.

Assembly Bill 390 would charge cannabis wholesalers $5,000 initially and $2,500 annually for the right to distribute weed.

Retail outlets would pay fees of $50 per ounce of cannabis to generate revenue for drug education programs statewide.

The bill would prohibit cannabis near schools. It also would ban smoking it in public places or growing it in public view.

Before California could sell marijuana openly, however, it would have to persuade the federal government to alter its prohibition on pot.

Ammiano said that such a change in federal law might be possible because new President Barack Obama – several years ago – expressed a desire to consider decriminalizing marijuana.

If the federal ban never is lifted, AB 390 would prohibit state and local officers from assisting federal agencies in enforcing marijuana laws.

It would instruct state and local officers not to make arrests for cultivating, selling, possessing, transporting or using the drug.

Capitol visitors interviewed randomly Monday had mixed views about AB 390.

"It makes a lot of sense," said Claudia Murdock, 59, of Folsom. "It's so black market now – and a tremendous amount of money could be generated."

Gabriel Antonio Evans, 29, said people already are acquiring marijuana now, legal or not.

"Like any other drug, if people want to get high, they're going to find a way," he said.

Timotao Parker, a 43-year-old Napa resident, said use of marijuana in the past prompted him to try other drugs.

"It lowers the inhibitions and makes you want to try other stuff, just like alcohol," he said.

Theresa Loya, 43, of Mariposa, said the bill indirectly could affect children.

"I'm afraid it would send the wrong message – that drugs are OK," she said.

Marijuana's supporters and critics often argue over whether pot poses risks.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy contends that short-term effects of marijuana use can range from memory loss to anxiety and increased heart rate.

The state attorney general's office declined to comment Monday on AB 390, as did the U.S. Department of Justice and federal Drug Enforcement Administration.

California reported 16,124 felony and 57,995 misdemeanor arrests linked to marijuana in 2007, the most recent statistics available.

Possessing less than 28.5 grams of cannabis can result in a base fine of up to $100 under state law, an amount that can rise to more than $350 with state and county penalty assessments.

Possessing larger amounts of marijuana can draw a maximum six-month jail sentence and/or a base fine of $500 under state law.

In a state whipsawed by recession and falling retail sales, legalization of marijuana could provide a much-needed financial boon, supporters claim.

"Marijuana already plays a huge role in the California economy," said Stephen Gutwillig, state director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "It's a revenue opportunity we literally can't afford to ignore any longer."

Gutwillig said the state's prohibition on marijuana also has been "a disaster when it comes to keeping pot out of the hands of young people."

A state-sponsored survey of California children in 2007 found that marijuana had been used by 9 percent of seventh-graders, 25 percent of high school freshmen, and 42 percent of 11th-graders.

Board of Equalization Chairwoman Betty Yee released a statement Monday supporting Ammiano's bill as a way to help law enforcement set priorities while raising new revenues.

AB 390 could generate roughly $1.3 billion per year from marijuana sales – about $990 million from the fee on retailers and $349 million in sales taxes, according to BOE estimates.

Anita Gore, BOE spokeswoman, said the agency estimates the value of marijuana grown annually in California at about $4 billion. Other estimates put the figure as high as $14 billion.

Legalizing marijuana is not supported by the California Narcotics Association, California Police Chiefs Association or California Peace Officers Association, lobbyist John Lovell said.

Lovell said it's "preposterous" to say that AB 390 would free officers to focus on worse crimes.

"Law enforcement activities always have been prioritized," he said.

"But to say that law enforcement should simply write off whole classes of socially destructive conduct I think is very bad public policy."