Twenty years ago the state in which I reside placed a measure before the voters concerning the legalization of a marijuana. It was soundly defeated. Something like 10:1. Months before the elections a handful of people were going from county fair to county fair trying to drum up support for the measure. Their very appearance was a turn off to the average American. Dirty clothes, unshaven, long hair, unkempt beards on the men, and often giving the appearance of someone stoned. No one stopped to listen except others of similar ilk.
These rumblings of legalization did not go unnoticed in Washington, D.C. This is the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Looking at sub:5011. “The Congress finds that legalization of illegal drugs, on the Federal or State level, is an unconscionable surrender in a war in which, for the future of our country and the lives of our children, there can be no substitute for total victory”. Looking further down, at sub:5252-B, “It is the declared policy of the United States to create a Drug-Free America by 1995".
Twenty years on and many cannot see any tangible progress in what seems to be a failing war on drugs. In spite of billion dollar, multi-departmental efforts; the availability of drugs increases. Billions of dollars are spent annually in the chase for an enemy more elusive than Usama.
Twenty years on and the ideological battle continues, but no ideological battle can be won based solely on who has the better statistics. Every side is well armed with statistics that say what they want them to say.
There are those who want to keep things the way they are and, in some cases, tighten up. To some there are several reasons for government to reduce the availability of drugs. They believe that drugs are bad for those who consume them and it is the role of government to protect us from ourselves. Much like protections from unsafe food, or possession of child pornography. They strengthen their position pointing to the tragedy of what users do to other people.
There are others who (to a more or less degree) support some variant of decriminalization. They believe government cannot, and should not, prohibit personal conduct that doesn’t hurt anyone else. Government should not be about the business of protecting people from themselves. That an individual be free to engage in the private use of a drug goes to the rights of self-determination.
An opponent of the prohibition would point out that only a few would seriously argue for the criminalization of alcohol and tobacco. Yet alcohol is far and away the drug most associated with crime and violence both social and domestic. Impacts surrounding tobacco are well documented. At it’s core, drug use, legal and illegal, is a health problem and should be out in the open; allowing for treatment and education. Prohibition often drives the user underground and anonymous. Problematic drug use should be accepted as inevitable, but limited and manageable.
The legal system is filled with drug cases that solve nothing. The usual suspects are mules that have no information to share and rely on an overworked public defender. Prisons are filled with mules, low level dealers and users. The kingpins can afford the best of legal defenses and spend most of their pre-trial time cutting deals. The prisons are not filled with the kingpins.
The legalization of an illegal drug would expose it’s profits to substantial taxation. $5,000 of drug money invested at the source can bring as much as $100,000 by the time it filters down to the streets. That’s a 20,000 % return and it’s tax free. It’s the prohibition that allows it. The government has never been shy about taxing the wages of sin. The tax free billions of drug kingpins would, instead, enter the mainstream economy and the flow of taxable income. Newly found revenues could be earmarked for law enforcement and education at both Federal and State levels
The most complete and succinct close would be the words of Judge Martin Haines', writing in the New Jersey Law Journal. “The decades-long indoctrination of the public in the need for a drug war as the only solution to the very serious problem of drugs has had serious consequences. It has prevented the consideration of any clearly necessary, intelligent alternative to a war that has not worked. Few public officials dare to advance alternatives. Doing so threatens the loss of the next election, or the next appointment.
There is a mountain of conflicting evidence and views about the course to be taken. This demonstrates the imperative need for an objective multidisciplinary study to independently assess the facts, and recommend courses of conduct to be followed. This study should be carried out by a commission that is bipartisan, is appointed jointly by Congress and the Executive, and is composed of persons of unquestioned prestige. (Needless to say, this presidential election year is not the time for any such inquiry.) As part of this process there must be a truly national debate about this subject to create conscience and consensus about these problems. Most important, there is a need to keep an open mind about these issues".
”
