The dubious policies of overcriminalization and drug prohibition are two frequent topics on this blog, so this excellent Ethan Nadelmann essay on the utter failure of America’s 40-year War on Drugs caught my eye. The entire piece is worth reading, but his final point is particularly illuminating:
Legalization has to be on the table. Not because it is necessarily the best solution. Not because it is the obvious alternative to the evident failures of drug prohibition. But for three important reasons:
First, because it is the best way to reduce dramatically the crime, violence, corruption and other extraordinary costs and harmful consequences of prohibition;
Second, because there are as many options — indeed more — for legally regulating drugs as there are options for prohibiting them; and
Third, because putting legalization on the table involves asking fundamental questions about why drug prohibitions first emerged, and whether they were or are truly essential to protect human societies from their own vulnerabilities. Insisting that legalization be on the table — in legislative hearings, public forums and internal government discussions — is not the same as advocating that all drugs be treated the same as alcohol and tobacco. It is, rather, a demand that prohibitionist precepts and policies be treated not as gospel but as political choices that merit critical assessment, including objective comparison with non-prohibitionist approaches.
My question is whether the elaborate law enforcement infrastructure that has been constructed to deal with drug prohibition policy become such a powerful political force that it effectively prevents Congress from changing this disastrous policy for the better good of the majority?
we are still “young” as a society and it will simply take more “time” before enough of us embrace legalization.
i do NOT think the law enforcement infrastructure is much of a barrier compared to the idea that most people, perhaps thoughtlessly, “just know” that legalization would be “bad”.
as more and more folks give drug prohibition thought, the downsides you articulate well will likely win the day and we will see legalization. i predict that will work better and we will not see a return to prohibition.–just more time needed.
Anyone thinking that government workers employed in the war on drugs will gladly make themselves extinct for the benefit of society is kidding themself. Police do not go to work each day to reduce crime, the go to work each day because it is in their economic benefit to do so. Same with prosecutors, jailers, probation officers, etc, etc. Recent events in Wisconsin have shown that government employees will not accept the realities of economics without a nasty fight. Many government workers realize they do not have skills that have value in a productive economy. They have shown will gladly sacrifice the interests of society to protect their own economic interests. The war on drugs isn’t going away in our lifetimes.
Excellent article laying out arguments which many of us have long believed.
Because of his position, Mr. Edelmann is constrained
from raising any of the deeper issues which prevent
drug legalization from being anything more than a dishonestly vague promise from slick politicians like O when he was addressing potential liberal voters in 2007-08.
The two strongest forces aligned against legalizing all drugs are:
1. Intelligence services – which depend on drug money to finance black operations.
2. Financial industry – which depends on drug money for laundering and other fee-based services.
Sir Allen could tell us a thing or two about both of the above.
More than any other single issue, I find the position on drug legalization is what separates libertarians from various strains of conservatism and liberalism.
And although there are certainly constituencies that stand to lose if the drug war is given up, I think the bigger barrier is the inability of the majority of people to apply “systems thinking” and follow and/or trust the chain of logic that inevitably leads to a conclusion of significant benefit/cost advantages of legalization. It just doesn’t “feel right” to a lot of otherwise bright people I know, even though they admit the logic of legalization is compelling . . .
Hi Tom,
I just came across your blog and really like the content you are posting. I don’t agree with everything but I don’t think we all agree on everything and often we can learn more from people we disagree with than from those that we are in total agreement.
I just posted a post about the privatization of the prison system on my blog.
http://www.wtffinance.com/2011/02/the-profitability-of-the-private-prison-system/
To your question whether the elaborate law enforcement infrastructure affects the policies on drug prohibition I think the answer is absolutely. If you look at many drugs that are currently illegal, they became illegal post-alcohol prohibition as many departments that fought alcohol prohibition before would have become obsolete and those government jobs would have been lost.
Much of the cost for fighting drugs and putting drug offenders in jail has increased since the introduction of the privatization of the prison system.
Bill above pointed out how intelligence services and the financial industry would lose out on revenue if drugs were legalized. While I agree I think the biggest beneficiaries are the pharmaceutical and those that benefit from the billions in government spending. Keeping drug prices artificially high also benefits the drug cartels. Amazing how a policy that should fight drugs benefits the dealers…