Ethan Nadelmann

Say It, Mr. President

2013-02-12T11:04:47-05:00

I firmly believe that at some point during his second administration President Obama is going to address the issue of mass incarceration in America. What I fear is that he is going to wait so long, and ultimately do so with such caution, as to minimize his potential impact.

I'll be listening to his State of the Union tonight, hoping against hope that he says something, and says something bold. He's made clear he has other priorities -- the economy, immigration, climate change and now gun violence -- but what a difference it would make for him to speak to this issue when he addresses the nation.

There's no question he gets it. Barack Obama was a strong proponent of criminal justice reform as a state legislator. He spoke about it when he ran for president the first time. His administration worked hard during his first years in office to eliminate the racially disproportionate disparity in federal sanctions for crack and powder cocaine, winning a bipartisan compromise to at least reduce the disparity from 100:1 to 18:1. And he made clear in a Time magazine interview just two months ago that he views over-incarceration for non-violent offenses as a real problem:

Well, I don't think it's any secret that we have one of the two or three highest incarceration rates in the world, per capita. I tend to be pretty conservative, pretty law and order, when it comes to violent crime. My attitude is, is that when you rape, murder, assault somebody, that you've made a choice; the society has every right to not only make sure you pay for that crime, but in some cases to disable you from continuing to engage in violent behavior.

But there's a big chunk of that prison population, a great huge chunk of our criminal justice system that is involved in nonviolent crimes. And it is having a disabling effect on communities. Obviously, inner city communities are most obvious, but when you go into rural communities, you see a similar impact. You have entire populations that are rendered incapable of getting a legitimate job because of a prison record. And it gobbles up a huge amount of resources. If you look at state budgets, part of the reason that tuition has been rising in public universities across the country is because more and more resources were going into paying for prisons, and that left less money to provide to colleges and universities.

But this is a complicated problem. One of the incredible transformations in this society that precedes me, but has continued through my presidency, even continued through the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression, is this decline in violent crime. And that's something that we want to continue. And so I think we have to figure out what are we doing right to make sure that that downward trend in violence continues, but also are there millions of lives out there that are being destroyed or distorted because we haven't fully thought through our process.

Read that last line, that last clause, again: "but also are there millions of lives out there that are being destroyed or distorted because we haven't fully thought through our process." He didn't say a few; he didn't say thousands; he said millions. And the fact is that the president's not exaggerating -- not when this country has less than 5 percent of the world's population but almost 25 percent of the world's incarcerated population; not when our rate of incarceration is roughly five times that of most other nations; not when we rely on incarceration to an extent unparalleled in the history of democratic societies; not when almost six million Americans can't vote because they were convicted of a felony; not when one of every 32 adult Americans are under the supervision of the criminal justice system, with all the indignities, discriminations and disadvantages that that entails; and not when the tens of billions of dollars spent each year incarcerating fellow citizens displaces expenditures on education, research and non-incarcerative infrastructure.

James Webb, who represented Virginia in the U.S. Senate for the past six years, said it well: "There are only two possibilities here: either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States; or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice."

During President Obama's first term, I occasionally had opportunity to ask senior White House aides why the president was so silent on this issue. Some simply said he had to focus on other priorities. Others suggested that his being the first black president made him particularly wary of taking the issue on given the extraordinary extent to which over-incarceration in this country is about race and the mass incarceration of black men. But wasn't that precisely the reason, or at least a key reason, I asked, why President Obama needed to address the issue, and needed to provide the leadership that only he could provide. Maybe in a second term, they replied.

Well, that second term is now -- and what the president says tonight is going to frame his proactive agenda for the next four years. "Millions of lives," he said; millions of American lives "being destroyed or distorted because we haven't fully thought through our process." If ever there was a time and an issue for President Obama to assert his moral leadership, this is it.

Say it, Mr. President, please say it now.

NY Times Ad: Prohibition Is Finally Coming to an End

2012-12-19T20:32:11-05:00

In Thursday's New York Times, the Drug Policy Alliance, the nation's leading drug policy reform organization, is running a full-page ad to thank voters in Colorado and Washington and emphasize the growing support for drug policy reform. Last month, Colorado and Washington became the first two states in the country -- and the first political jurisdictions anywhere in the world -- to approve legally regulating marijuana like alcohol, with both states' initiatives winning by decisive margins.

Voters in Washington and Colorado did more than just make history by voting to end their states' marijuana prohibition laws and attempt instead to regulate marijuana as a legal commodity. They performed a national service by catapulting the national conversation about drug policy to a new level of urgency and political significance. The ad appears just one week after President Obama commented on the votes in Colorado and Washington -- framing the conflict between federal and state law as a question to be resolved and stating that people who use marijuana in states that have legalized it should not be a "top priority" for federal law enforcement.

Even before the votes in Colorado and Washington were counted, 2012 had already been a watershed year for the burgeoning movement to end the war on drugs. Arguments that were articulated just five years ago primarily by intellectuals and activists, and three years ago by former presidents and policymakers, are now being advanced with growing sophistication and nuance by current presidents in Latin America and a small but growing number of elected officials in the United States.

In Latin America, presidents such as Juan Manuel Santos (Colombia), Otto Pérez Molina (Guatemala), and José Mujica (Uruguay) are embracing alternatives to prohibition. In a sign of the shifting political tides, two U.S. governors from opposite sides of the aisle who are often mentioned as 2016 presidential candidates -- New York's Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey's Chris Christie -- have embraced drug policy reform this year. Governor Christie broke ranks with fellow Republicans by calling the drug war a failure, while Governor Cuomo committed to ending New York's racially discriminatory marijuana arrest crusade. Even strange bedfellows like evangelical leader Pat Robertson and former President Jimmy Carter spoke out in support of legally regulating marijuana this year. And perhaps most tellingly, President Bill Clinton joined several other former presidents in sharply criticizing the war on drugs in the just-released documentary Breaking the Taboo.

This past year was the best ever for our growing movement to end the war on drugs. Marijuana legalization and broader drug policy reform have moved from the fringes to the mainstream of U.S. and international politics.

Below is the text of the ad running in Thursday's New York Times:

80 Years After the End of Prohibition, Prohibition is Finally Coming to an End

Voters in Washington and Colorado made history on Election Day when they voted to legally regulate and tax marijuana. Their votes signaled the beginning of the end for the costly and unjust war on drugs.

Thank you to the citizens of Washington and Colorado.

The Drug Policy Alliance is especially proud of this milestone, as we worked for years to make this historic day happen.

We'd also like to thank: President Bill Clinton for acknowledging the drug war's futility and failure; President Jimmy Carter and Pat Robertson for saying it's time to legalize marijuana; Governor Christie for calling the drug war a failure and Governor Cuomo for working to end New York's racially discriminatory marijuana arrest crusade; Congressmen Ron Paul and Barney Frank for introducing the first bill to end federal marijuana prohibition; Presidents Santos (Colombia), Pérez Molina (Guatemala) and Mujica (Uruguay) for breaking the taboo on alternatives to drug prohibition; and, most of all, our many allies around the world for demanding no more drug war.

We strive for the day when drug policies are no longer motivated by ignorance, fear and prejudice but rather by science, compassion, fiscal prudence and human rights, with education and treatment available for everyone. Help us fight the good fight by making a tax deductible donation.

Join Us

Parsing Obama's Words on Legalizing Marijuana

2012-12-14T10:15:42-05:00

Anytime the president answers a question about marijuana and federal marijuana policy, as he did in a recent interview with ABC's Barbara Walters that airs tonight, it makes sense to parse his words.

Four things stand out in ABC's press release about the president's comments.

The first is that he responded in a serious and substantive tone, which contrasted with the jokingly dismissive ways in which he answered questions about marijuana legalization just a few years ago. The ballot initiative victories in Colorado and Washington gave him no choice this time. Marijuana legalization is now a political reality.

The second was his comment -- highlighted by ABC in its news release -- that recreational users of marijuana in states that have legalized the substance should not be a "top priority" of federal law enforcement officials prosecuting the war on drugs. "We've got bigger fish to fry," he said. That statement is not news. Federal law enforcement officials have never prioritized going after users of marijuana. Obama has said much the same regarding medical consumers of marijuana, but that begs the question of whether consumers will be able to make their purchases from legal or only illegal sources.

The third was when Obama told Walters he does not -- "at this point" -- support widespread legalization of marijuana. The caveat "at this point" sounds a lot like how he responded to questions about legalizing gay marriage - until he finally decided it was time to publicly support it. Obama cited shifting public opinion and essentially made clear that this is not an issue on which he wants to provide leadership so long as public opinion is split and Congress unlikely to do anything constructive.

The fourth, and most substantive, comment was the following: "This is a tough problem, because Congress has not yet changed the law," Obama said. "I head up the executive branch; we're supposed to be carrying out laws. And so what we're going to need to have is a conversation about, How do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it's legal?" What stands out here are the words about the "need to have... a conversation" and the fact that he is framing the conflict between federal and state law as a question to be resolved as opposed to one in which it is simply assumed that federal marijuana prohibition trumps all.

What remains unclear is whom the president sees as the participants in that conversation. Earlier this week Attorney General Holder said, in response to questions after a speech at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston, "I would expect the policy pronouncement that we're going to make will be done relatively soon." All indications suggest that deliberations about the administration's position are being conducted primarily by and among federal law enforcement officials, many of whom appear most comfortable reciting the mantra that "it's all illegal under federal law" as grounds for dismissing any further conversation.

That is why the letter sent last week by Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to drug czar Gil Kerlikowske is especially significant. "What assurance can and will the administration give to state officials involved in the licensing of marijuana retailers that they will not face Federal criminal penalties for carrying out duties assigned to them under state law?" he asked, and then stated that "legislative options exist to resolve the differences between federal and state law in this area and end the uncertainty that residents of Colorado and Washington now face."

Voters in Washington and Colorado did more than just make history last month by voting to end their states' marijuana prohibition laws and attempt instead to regulate marijuana as a legal commodity. They performed a national service by catapulting the national conversation about marijuana policy to a new level of urgency and political significance. President Obama is right about the need for a conversation. He needs to ensure that federal officials engage in good faith and with due deference to the fiscal, moral and public safety and health arguments in favor of legally regulating marijuana rather than persisting with a costly and ineffective prohibitionist policy.

Obama and the Marijuana Legalization Initiatives

2012-11-14T18:54:25-05:00

On Election Day, Washington State and Colorado became the first two states in the country -- and indeed the first political jurisdictions anywhere in the world -- to approve legally regulating marijuana like alcohol.

It would be a mistake to call these ballot initiative victories "pro-pot." Most of those who voted in favor don't use marijuana; indeed many don't like it at all and have never used it. What moved them was the realization that it made more sense to regulate, tax and control marijuana than to keep wasting money and resources trying to enforce an unenforceable prohibition.

Whether or not the two state governments move forward with regulating marijuana like alcohol will depend on two things: how the Obama administration, federal prosecutors and police agencies respond; and the extent to which the states' senior elected officials commit to implementing the will of the people. The fact that federal laws explicitly criminalize marijuana transactions, and that the federal government can continue to enforce those laws, means that federal authorities could effectively block the initiatives from being fully implemented. But there are also good reasons why the Obama administration should, and may, allow state governments to proceed as voters have demanded.

First, keep in mind that no one needs to do anything right away. The provisions legalizing personal possession of up to an ounce of marijuana, and (in the case of Colorado) also allowing the cultivation of up to six plants in the privacy of one's home, will become state law once the initiatives are certified in coming weeks. But those provisions, while contrary to federal law, are unlikely to excite the attentions of federal authorities, who will be more concerned with how the states propose to regulate larger scale production and distribution. The Colorado government, however, has until July 1, and the Washington State government until the end of next year, to issue a statewide regulatory plan. That affords plenty of time for consultation and dialogue.

Second, senior state officials, including Colorado's Governor Hickenlooper and Attorney General Suthers, as well as Washington's newly elected governor, Jay Inslee, and attorney general, Bob Ferguson, have all said that they will work to uphold the new laws, notwithstanding their pre-Election Day opposition. The two incoming officials in Washington may also be moved by the fact that the marijuana reform initiative garnered more votes than either of them did.

Third, whereas Attorney General Eric Holder warned California voters in October 2010 that the federal government would not allow the marijuana legalization initiative on the ballot at the time to be implemented if it won (which it did not), no such warning was forthcoming this year. Former drug czars and DEA chiefs banded together to urge Holder to speak out again, but both he and President Obama remained silent, perhaps influenced by polls showing strong support for marijuana legalization among young and independent voters in the swing state of Colorado and elsewhere.

Fourth, the Obama administration's actions, vis a vis the 18 states that have legalized medical marijuana, offers important insights. Federal prosecutors have acted most aggressively in those states, like Montana and California, which failed to adopt statewide regulation of the emerging industry, and have exercised the greatest restraint in places like New Mexico, Maine and Colorado, where state government is deeply engaged. President Obama has not entirely reneged on the pledge he made as a candidate in 2008, and reiterated as president in 2009, that the federal government would refrain from prosecuting medical marijuana providers operating legally under state law. He has the authority to declare a similar policy of restraint regarding the new laws in Colorado and Washington.

Fifth, in my conversations with foreign leaders, major Democratic Party donors and senior political advisers who have discussed drug policy with the president over the past year, all say that Obama seems inclined to pursue further reform of drug policies in a second term. Nothing dramatic, to be sure, but there's a sense that he and those close to him get it -- and will say and do things in a second term that they didn't during the first.

Will federal prosecutors and police agents continue to repeat the mantra that "it's all illegal under federal law" and that the federal Controlled Substances Act trumps all state laws? Yes, of course. But they're up against a powerful host of arguments that also demand deference. These new laws were passed by voter initiatives, which represent the clearest expressions of the will of the people. The final tallies were consistent with public opinion polls earlier in the year, before anyone had spent a penny on political advertising. Voters clearly knew what they were voting for.

Effectively implemented, the new laws could offer fiscal benefits in terms of reducing criminal justice costs and increasing tax revenues, public safety benefits in terms of transforming a criminal, underground market into a legally regulated above-ground part of local economies, and public health benefits in terms of regulating the quality and potency of substances consumed by millions of Americans. They also, it must be said, advance the cause of freedom.

"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system," Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote (in dissent) in 1932, "that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." Not one but two courageous states have chosen to serve in this way. President Obama should do everything in his power to allow them to do it right.

Ethan Nadelmann is the founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Washington State and Colorado Will Lead the Way Towards Sensible Drug Laws

2012-11-07T18:36:49-05:00

12:50AM EST November 7. 2012 - Washington State and Colorado made history tonight by becoming the first states in the United States - to approve the legal regulation of marijuana.

These victories likely represent the beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition in this country and many others as well. Just as the repeal of alcohol Prohibition began in the late 1920s with individual states repealing their own prohibition laws, and ultimately culminated with repeal of federal Prohibition, so Washington and Colorado have initiated a political process that will resonate nationally.

The transformation in public opinion over the past six years, not just in these two states but nationwide, has been nothing short of remarkable. As recently as 2006, Gallup's polling found 36% of Americans in favor of legalizing marijuana use and 60% opposed. By late 2011, that 36% in favor had jumped to 50% and the opposition has fallen to 46%. What Washington and Colorado did tonight, other states are sure to replicate in years to come. Not all will succeed, as Oregon apparently did not tonight, but the dominoes of marijuana prohibition are poised to topple.

It would be a mistake to describe these victories as "pro-pot." Millions of Americans who have no particular affinity for marijuana have decided that it makes no sense to keep spending billions of dollars trying to enforce an unenforceable prohibition when state and local governments could be taking in comparable amounts by taxing and regulating marijuana. They know that legalizing marijuana will deprive criminal organizations in Mexico and this country of profits and power, and enable police and prosecutors to focus resources on serious crimes. They are convinced that arresting 750,000 people each year for possessing a small amount of marijuana is costly, cruel and unjust. And they rightfully believe that young people will fare better with responsible regulations rather than ineffective prohibitions.

To put this in global perspective, even as the federal government persists with its failed drug war strategy, the United States has now emerged as the global leader in promoting more sensible policies with respect to marijuana.

Ethan Nadelmann is the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

This post originally appeared at USA Today.

The Genie Has Escaped the Drug Prohibition Bottle

2012-07-30T12:06:02-04:00

This morning, the front page of the New York Times featured an article titled "South America Sees Drug Path to Legalization," which discusses the growing debate on alternatives to the drug war.

Throughout Latin America, both former and current heads of state are demanding that the full range of policy options be expanded to include alternatives that help to reduce the prohibition-related crime violence and corruption in their own countries - and insisting that decriminalization and legal regulation of currently illicit drug markets be considered.

This is the first time that sitting presidents are discussing the problems of prohibition and the merits of less repressive approaches. Even President Obama was obliged to acknowledge the legitimacy of the debate at the Summit of the Americas in April 2012 when he said, "it is entirely legitimate to have a conversation about whether the laws in place are doing more harm than good." In Latin America, where the war on drugs has caused unprecedented levels of violence, death and corruption, this debate is an important step toward improving the region's economy, security and quality of life.

In February, Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina garnered worldwide attention by calling for a debate on alternatives to the war on drugs, including decriminalization and regulation. His proposal quickly received support from other leaders in Latin America. Over the next few months, the failure of the war on drugs and alternatives to current strategies were discussed at significant high-level events, including the Summit of the Americas in Colombia, and at the World Economic Forum for Latin America in Mexico in April. Most recently, in mid-July, Belize set up a committee to analyze a marijuana decriminalization proposal, following Uruguay's June announcement of a plan to legalize marijuana, which would make it the first country in the world where the state sells the drug directly to its citizens.

Uruguay's President Mujica is providing fresh leadership among those leaders in Latin America who are determined to transform drug control policies in the region. Like presidents Juan Manuel Santos (Colombia) and Otto Perez Molina (Guatemala), he recognizes the need for both bold proposals and sustained commitment to advancing new dialogues and policies.

Not just they but also other Latin American presidents like Laura Chinchilla (Costa Rica), Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (Argentina) and Rafael Correa (Ecuador) know that the prohibitionist strategies mandated by the U.S. government for the past forty years have wreaked havoc in the region and offer no promise of success in accomplishing their stated objectives. But they also recognize that those strategies, and the powerful inertia that sustains them, can only be transformed by combining bold leadership at the national level with coordinated international action.

That's why President Mujica's leadership is so important at this juncture. By directing his government to consider a variety of regulatory policies designed to reduce crime and illicit markets and separate cannabis from other illicit drug markets, he is doing precisely what needs to be done not just in other Latin American countries but also in the United States, Europe and indeed the rest of the world.

The long term alternative to the failed global drug prohibition regime ultimately lies in embracing three specific policy options: legal regulation of cannabis, more or less like alcohol; full decriminalization of possession of small amounts of drugs, more or less as the Portuguese have done; and legal access to pharmaceutical versions of other illicit drugs for those addicts and other committed consumers who are determined to obtain the drugs they need or want regardless of their legal status.

Former presidents Cardoso (Brazil), Gaviria (Colombia) and Zedillo (Mexico) provided courageous leadership in breaking the taboo on consideration of alternatives to failed prohibitionist policies. President Santos boldly embraced their analyses and recommendations late last year. President Perez Molina then stepped forward with provocative proposals and efforts to engage other regional leaders on the issue. And now President Mujica is stepping forward with precise proposals that would make Uruguay a global leader in reforming cannabis laws.

There's no question that the genie has escaped the drug prohibition bottle.

Ethan Nadelmann is the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance (www.drugpolicy.org)

You Can't End AIDS Unless You End the Drug War

2012-07-24T12:25:30-04:00

The end of AIDS is not just possible but predictably achievable. Science is showing the way.

But science is laborious, time consuming and costly. Its achievements must be complemented by effective government action to control the spread of HIV among vulnerable populations.

As world leaders gather this week in Washington D.C. for the 2012 International AIDS Conference, it is impossible to ignore an inconvenient truth: that drug war politics and policies in the United States and many other countries are severely jeopardizing the overall "fight against AIDS." Simply stated, criminalizing those people who use drugs increases the risk of HIV infection and undermines efforts to protect them, their families and communities.

Roughly 33 million people worldwide are currently living with HIV -- and injection drug use accounts for one-third of all new HIV infections outside sub-Saharan Africa. New infections have been falling since the late 1990s but HIV incidence has increased by more than 25 percent in seven countries over this time span, largely as a result of the transmission of HIV through the sharing of needles and syringes contaminated with HIV.

Research from around the world has consistently shown that repressive drug law enforcement compels people who use drugs to remain hidden and stay away from public health services, thereby increasing the risks of HIV infection. Mass incarceration of people for nonviolent drug offenses also plays a major role in spreading the virus, as inhumane conditions and lack of HIV prevention and treatment in prisons leads to untreated AIDS behind bars and the subsequent spread of HIV among families and communities once those who have been imprisoned are released. By contrast, "syringe exchange", i.e. the provision of clean needles in exchange for soiled ones, and other "harm reduction" programs are among the most effective and cost-efficient HIV prevention interventions. It has been shown that they also link people to general health care, connect people with sources of addiction treatment, reduce overall drug use and save taxpayers money.

The evidence from different countries is telling. The fight against AIDS can be won in countries where addiction is treated as a health issue. New HIV infections in countries such as Australia, Portugal and Switzerland have been nearly eliminated among people who use drugs. The same is true of mother-to-child transmission of HIV where preventive medications are accessible to pregnant women. In Brazil - often cited as a model among developing countries in addressing the AIDS crisis -- AIDS cases associated with injection drug use dropped from 28 percent in the early 1990s to just 10 percent by 2003 following the implementation of "harm reduction" programs such as sterile syringe exchanges.

By contrast, in countries like the United States, China and Thailand, effective HIV prevention programs for people who inject drugs are tolerated but crippled by hostility from drug control forces, both local and national. If the United States had embraced the sorts of harm reduction programs that Australia and many European countries, including Margaret Thatcher's United Kingdom, did embrace during the 1980s, more than a hundred thousand lives would have been saved -- not only among people who use drugs but their lovers and children as well. One wishes that those responsible for so many needless deaths in our country could be held accountable - yet the willful ignorance and prejudice that has killed so many of our fellow citizens in decades past still persists. Just a few months ago, Republican leaders in the U.S. Congress re-instated a longstanding ban on the use of federal funds for syringe exchange programs -- a move that will cost thousands of lives in years to come.

Few countries are as backward in this area as Russia (where the epidemic is largely driven by people who inject drugs) and where the number of infected individuals has more than quadrupled since 2000. In Russia, more than one in 100 adults are infected HIV. Medications that could effectively treat heroin addiction are illegal in that country and, so far, its government has reneged on promises to fund syringe exchange programs.

Too many countries in the world have let their repressive and punitive drug policies get in the way of the public's health. Ours is one of them. Facilities where people who inject drugs can do so under medical supervision now operate legally in 61 cities around the world. These facilities have been proven to reduce the health and societal problems associated with injection drug use, including HIV transmission. None, however, exist as yet in the United States.

The current situation has quite literally resulted from a life-or-death decision made by politicians. The spread of HIV will not be stopped as long as drug use remains criminalized and as long as people who inject drugs are given up for lost.

Mathilde Krim is founding chair of amfAR and a member of the board of the Drug Policy Alliance. Ethan Nadelmann is founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Belize to Consider Decriminalizing Marijuana Possession

2012-07-18T15:54:20-04:00

On July 16, the government of Belize released a press statement announcing the appointment of a committee to evaluate a proposal to decriminalize marijuana possession. The committee - to be headed by a former police minister - was appointed by the Minister of National Security. The proposal in question seeks to remove criminal sanctions for possession of up to 10 grams of marijuana and instead impose fines and mandatory drug education. Currently, possession of less than 60 grams of marijuana is punishable by a fine of up to US$26,000 and/or up to three years in prison.

The government's press release states that the initiative "is driven by increasing evidence that the current legislation clutters the courts and the prisons with primarily a marginalized segment of our population. The added impact of a permanent criminal record further disadvantages this already marginalized group as it establishes a barrier against meaningful employment (...) This is further supported by international trends toward decriminalization."

Due to its geographical placement, Belize has become a prime drug trafficking gateway from South America into Mexico and the United States. Last year, the Obama administration added Belize to a blacklist of countries considered major drug production or transit routes. As a result of increased drug trafficking, Belize has seen rising levels of violence and numbers of street gangs. In a country beleaguered by drug-related crime, decriminalizing marijuana users will free up law enforcement and court resources to tackle the gang violence instead of focusing on imprisoning low-level drug offenders.

This is a modest proposal, consistent with decriminalization legislation in many U.S. states, as well as in Latin American and European countries. It is also notable because Belizean law enforcement officials and agencies are the ones pushing it forward. It is good to see a government acknowledging the harms of marijuana criminalization, which most negatively affects society's marginalized communities.

Decriminalizing drug possession appears to have little impact on levels of illicit drug use. Its principal impacts are reducing arrests of drug users, especially those who are young and/or members of minority groups; reducing opportunities for low level police corruption; allowing police to focus on more serious crimes; reducing criminal justice system costs; and better enabling individuals, families, communities and local governments to deal with addiction as a health rather than criminal issue.

The United States clearly lags far behind Europe and Latin America in ending the criminalization of drug possession. Momentum for reform is growing with respect to decriminalization of marijuana possession, with Massachusetts reducing penalties in 2008, California in 2010, Connecticut in 2011 and Rhode Island earlier this year. All states, however, treat possession of other illegal drugs as a crime. Thirteen states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government currently treat possession of drugs for personal use as a misdemeanor, with penalties of up to a year in jail. The remaining thirty-seven states treat possession of cocaine, heroin and other drugs as a felony, with penalties than can include many years in prison.

It is encouraging to see Belize's government join the growing number of countries calling for alternatives to the criminalization of people who use drugs. In the past months, Latin America has been at the forefront of this trend - most recently with Uruguay's marijuana legalization proposal - and the move by Belize towards marijuana decriminalization represents another significant step forward in this debate. Hopefully, this initiative will mark the beginning of the Belizean government playing a more active role in regional and international discussions on drug policy reform.

Ethan Nadelmann is the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance

Colombia Decriminalizes Cocaine and Marijuana, As Latin American Momentum for Drug Policy Reform Continues

2012-07-02T09:47:17-04:00

Colombia's Constitutional Court Friday approved the government's proposal to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of cocaine and marijuana for personal use. Anyone caught with less than 20 grams of marijuana or one gram of cocaine for personal use may receive physical or psychological treatment depending on their state of consumption, but may not be prosecuted or detained, the court ruled.

Colombia's move is part of a growing trend in Latin America. After decades of being brutalized by the U.S. government's failed prohibitionist drug policies, Latin American leaders are saying "enough is enough."

Last week, the government of Uruguay announced that it will submit a proposal to legalize marijuana under government-controlled regulation and sale, making it the first country in the world where the state would sell marijuana directly to its citizens. The proposal was drafted by Uruguayan President José Mujica and his staff and requires parliamentary approval before being enacted.

Friday's judicial ruling in Colombia represents yet another important step in the growing political and judicial movement in Latin America and Europe to stop treating people who consume drugs as criminals worthy of incarceration. It is consistent with prior rulings by Colombian courts before former president Álvaro Uribe sought to undermine them, and also with rulings by the Supreme Court of Argentina in 2009 and other courts in the region. The Colombian Constitutional Court's decision is obviously most important in Colombia, where it represents both a powerful repudiation of former president Uribe's push to criminalize people who use drugs and a victory for President Juan Manuel Santos' call for a new direction in drug policy.

Most decriminalization initiatives in Latin America, however, are being proposed and enacted not by courts but by presidents and national legislatures. In addition to President Santos, Guatemala's new president, Otto Pérez Molina, is an advocate of decriminalization as are - in various ways and to different degrees - the presidents of Costa Rica, Uruguay, Ecuador and Argentina. Some Latin American countries, it should be pointed out, never criminalized drug possession in the first place. This trend follows in the footsteps of European reforms since the 1990s. Portugal, which decriminalized drug possession in 2001, stands out as a model.

Decriminalizing drug possession appears to have little impact on levels of illicit drug use. Its principal impacts are reducing arrests of drug users, especially those who are young and/or members of minority groups; reducing opportunities for low level police corruption; allowing police to focus on more serious crimes; reducing criminal justice system costs; and better enabling individuals, families, communities and local governments to deal with addiction as a health rather than criminal issue.

The United States clearly lags far behind Europe and Latin America in ending the criminalization of drug possession. Momentum for reform is growing with respect to decriminalization of marijuana possession, with Massachusetts reducing penalties in 2008, California in 2010, Connecticut in 2011 and Rhode Island earlier this year. All states, however, treat possession of other illegal drugs as a crime. Thirteen states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government currently treat possession of drugs for personal use as a misdemeanor, with penalties of up to a year in jail. The remaining thirty-seven states treat possession of cocaine, heroin and other drugs as a felony, with penalties than can include many years in prison.

While decriminalization certainly represents an important step in the right direction, it does not address many of the greater harms of prohibition, including high levels of crime, corruption and violence, empowerment of criminal organizations, massive black markets and the harmful health consequences of drugs produced in the absence of regulatory oversight. Decriminalization of drug possession is a necessary but not sufficient step toward a more comprehensive reform of the global drug prohibition regime.

Ethan Nadelmann is the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance (www.drugpolicy.org)

Chicago to Decriminalize Marijuana

2012-06-27T18:06:35-04:00

The Chicago City Council passed -- by a vote of 43 to 2 -- an ordinance today that will decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. People caught with less than half an ounce of marijuana may now be given a ticket rather than be arrested. The fine will be $250 at first, and more for subsequent tickets. People caught smoking in public, on school grounds or in public will still be arrested, as will those without an ID or under age 17.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy came out in support of the ordinance earlier this month and have talked about the need to free up police resources to fight more serious crime.

Momentum to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana is clearly growing nationally, with Massachusetts reducing penalties in 2008, California in 2010, Connecticut in 2011 and Rhode Island earlier this year. In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo recently proposed decriminalizing up to 25 grams of marijuana in public view, which drew the support of New York City's mayor, police commissioner and all five of the City's district attorneys -- although Republicans in the state Senate blocked it from becoming law.

The Chicago City Council's vote today to allow police to issue a ticket rather than arrest someone for marijuana is very much a step in the right direction. The Council's near unanimous support for the measure as well as specific comments by aldermen demonstrated significant concern with the waste of police resources, harmful consequences of an arrest and the fact that more than three-fourths of all marijuana arrests are of African Americans. If the measure is implemented in good faith, it should reduce the negative consequences of the state's marijuana prohibition laws in Chicago.

But the devil is very much in the details as to whether the new ordinance will ultimately do more good than harm. The fine of $250, and possibly more, is excessive -- and may result in undue hardship for young and poor people without the resources to pay. Police will retain the legal authority to arrest rather than ticket people for marijuana possession, thereby allowing for the perpetuation of racial bias in enforcing the state's marijuana laws. More people may be stopped and charged with marijuana possession offenses than before. And the mayor and police chief's insistence that their proposal "is not decriminalization" is less than reassuring.

Chicago's aldermen need to remain vigilant in ensuring that the measure they approved today actually accomplishes what they hope. They also need to push the state legislature to decriminalize marijuana possession statewide. And ultimately, of course, the best solution is to end marijuana prohibition entirely!

Ethan Nadelmann is the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance (www.drugpolicy.org)

Obama's Hypocritical War on Marijuana

2012-05-25T17:58:05-04:00

A forthcoming biography on President Obama is making headlines, with new details about the president smoking marijuana with his teenage friends in Hawaii.

David Maraniss' book, Barack Obama: The Story, describes Obama as a marijuana enthusiast: "When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted 'Intercepted!' and took an extra hit," Maraniss writes. Maraniss also describes Obama's technique of "roof hits" while hot-boxing cars. "When the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling," he writes. Obama has been less than shy about his drug use in the past, writing about the topic in Dreams from My Father, "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it," he writes in the memoir.

While Obama's term began with great promise for drug policy reformers, in the past two years it has been difficult to distinguish Obama's drug policies from those of his White House predecessors. Although President Obama has acknowledged that legalization is "an entirely legitimate topic for debate" -- the first time a sitting president has made such a statement -- his administration has made a string of increasingly disappointing moves over the last year. Half of all U.S. drug arrests are for marijuana -- more than 850,000 Americans were arrested for marijuana in 2010 alone, 88 percent for mere possession.

Barack Obama won a lot of hearts and minds some years ago when he talked so openly and frankly about his youthful marijuana use. That contrasted refreshingly with Bill Clinton's hemming and hawing about not having inhaled, much less George Bush's refusal to even acknowledge what old friends revealed about his marijuana use.

But the president has been losing lots of hearts and minds, especially those of young voters, with his striking silence on marijuana issues since he became president -- apart from providing lame excuses for the federal government's aggressive undermining of state medical marijuana laws.

Most disappointing is his failure to say a word as president about the fact that half of all drug arrests each year are for nothing more than possessing a small amount of marijuana, which is something Barack Obama did lots of in his younger days, or to offer any critical comments about the stunning racial disproportionality in marijuana arrests around the country.

Roughly twice as many people are arrested for marijuana possession now as were arrested in the early 1980s, even though the number of people consuming marijuana is no greater now than then. If police had been as keen on making marijuana arrests back then, it's quite possible that a young man named Barry Obama would have landed up with a criminal record -- and even more likely that he would not have his current job.

With 50 percent of Americans -- and 57 percent of Democrats -- now in favor of legalizing marijuana use, according to Gallup's most recent poll, President Obama needs to come clean once again about marijuana -- but this time he needs to speak not of his own youthful use but rather of the harmful consequences of today's punitive marijuana policies for young Americans today.

Ethan Nadelmann is the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance (www.drugpolicy.org)

Drinking Your Own Urine to Survive? Just One of the Millions of Drug War Atrocities

2012-05-04T11:13:05-04:00

Daniel Chong, UC-San Diego student, said he was forced to drink his own urine after he was left in a Drug Enforcement Administration holding cell for nearly five days. Chong was smoking marijuana at a friend's house celebrating 4/20, when the DEA raided the house. The DEA agents brought him to their offices for questioning, but then told him he could go home. He was not charged with anything. But before Chong could leave he was placed in a cell where he was left for days without any contact. During this time, he survived by drinking his own urine, and eventually he attempted suicide by breaking his own eyeglasses and cutting the words "Sorry Mom" into his arm.

A DEA employee took Chong to the hospital, where he spent three days in intensive care and his kidneys were close to failing. Mr. Chong is now suing the DEA for $20 million.

It's not like DEA does this sort of thing every day. But what happened to Daniel Chong is an inevitable consequence of a war on drugs that arrests and detains millions of people for drug law violations, most of them involving petty offenses.

Being incarcerated, even for just a few days, can be devastating. People guilty of nothing more than possessing a little marijuana are locked up with people who may be violent criminals. Some are abused, beaten and raped, and others deprived of essential medication or contact with their families. A few commit suicide. Many are otherwise traumatized by the experience of being tossed into jail even when their jailers don't forget about them. And even greater numbers suffer serious and sometimes permanent consequences from whatever conviction results, including loss of employment, housing and government assistance, loss of custody of one's children, and much more.

If a private citizen had done to Daniel Chong what the DEA did, that person would face abundant criminal charges and the likelihood of spending many years behind bars. But when the government does it, the victim is typically lucky to get an apology -- especially if he or she is poor or has darker skin. That's not right. Both DEA staff and the organization as a whole need to be held responsible.

One can only imagine what would have happened, and would be happening now, if the person abandoned by the DEA in a holding cell for five days had been a person, or child of a person, of wealth and power. That would put not just the DEA on trial but also the policies of mass arrest and incarceration that distinguish the United States from all other nations.

Ethan Nadelmann is the founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, the leading organization in the United States promoting alternatives to the war on drugs.

Legalization Debate Takes Off in Latin America

2012-03-10T18:53:00-05:00

Something incredible is happening right now in Latin America.

After decades of being brutalized by the U.S. government's failed prohibitionist drug policies, Latin American leaders, including not just distinguished former presidents but also current presidents, are saying "enough is enough." They're demanding that the range of policy options be expanded to include alternatives that help reduce the crime, violence and corruption in their own countries -- and insisting that decriminalization and legal regulation of currently illicit drug markets be considered.

Guatemala's new president, Otto Perez Molina, is providing important leadership. As a political conservative and former general, he has credibility that others lack. When he started speaking out publicly last month about the need to consider new drug policy options including legalization, many observers thought it was just a ploy to secure greater economic and military aid from the United States. But he's demonstrated a commitment and engagement over the past month that have persuaded fellow presidents that he's serious about this. Within Guatemala, his initiative has been praised by diverse voices including prominent business leaders, Archbishop Oscar Julio Vian and the head of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), Francisco Dall'Anese.

President Perez Molina sent his vice president, Roxana Baldetti, on a tour of neighboring countries two weeks ago to seek the support of other Central American presidents for opening up a new discussion on drug policy alternatives for the region. Most said they were willing to join the discussion. (It probably helped that U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was also touring the region that week, and alienating regional leaders with unsubstantiated claims that the drug war was working.) Now the presidents have agreed to come to Guatemala on March 24 for a wide-ranging debate on the subject.

Meanwhile, Colombia's President Juan Manuel Santos, who had been eager to open the debate but reportedly frustrated by the failure of other regional leaders to join him, appears to have been galvanized by the Guatemalan president's initiative. He met yesterday with former presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brazil), Ricardo Lagos (Chile) and Felipe González (Spain) to talk about the best way to raise this issue at the Summit of the Americas meeting in Cartagena in April.

Mexican President Calderon also seems increasingly willing to engage. Having waged a multi-year battle with criminal organizations whose principal source of revenue is the illicit drug traffic to the United States, no one has greater moral authority to call for alternatives to failed prohibitionist policies. And no one knows better that one cannot win a war against what is essentially a dynamic global commodities market, especially when one's country abuts the largest consumer market in the world. He put his toes in the water last year when he started saying that the United States should consider "market alternatives" if it were unable to reduce its demand for illegal drugs. And he followed up by joining with regional leaders in late 2011 in the "Tuxtla Declaration," which stated that if the demand for illegal drugs could not be reduced, "authorities in the consuming countries ought then to explore possible alternatives to eliminate the exorbitant profits of the criminals, including regulatory or market oriented options to this end. Thus, the transit of substances that continue provoking high levels of crime and violence in Latin American and Caribbean nations will be avoided."

Calls for drug policy reform are proliferating rapidly in Mexico. Calderon's predecessor, Vicente Fox, pulls no punches in saying that legalization is the best approach. Fox's predecessor, Ernesto Zedillo, joined with former Brazilian president Cardoso and former Colombian president Cesar Gaviria in organizing first a Latin American and then a Global Commission on Drug Policy, both of which called for major reform of drug policies, including legal regulation of marijuana, and also for "breaking the taboo" on considering all drug policy options, including legal regulation.

Now business leaders in Monterrey and Mexico City, wary of the growing power of criminal organizations, are joining the debate with sophistication, resources and support for legalization in one form or another. And, from the left, Javier Sicilia, the influential poet turned social justice movement leader, is saying much the same.

It's thus no surprise that Mexican foreign secretary Patricia Espinosa announced at a meeting of the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly in late February that her government now supported a debate on legalization.

Honduran President Porfirio Lobos announced on Friday that Presidents Calderon and Santos had both been invited to the meeting in Guatemala on March 24, and were considering attending.

All this presents a dilemma for the U.S. government. When Vice President Biden visited the region last week, he made clear that the Obama administration firmly opposes legalization -- but also acknowledged, as President Obama had in early 2011, that the topic was a legitimate subject for discussion. That modest concession was important, not least in sending a clear message to other federal officials, including the drug czar, senior diplomats and Pentagon officials, that outright rejection of any discussion was no longer required. It manifested yesterday when the State Department's (Acting) Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Mike Hammer, stated that "We are, of course, willing to discuss the issue to express our opinion as far as why we do not see it as the best way in which to address the problem." "It is, he continued, "a serious subject and we are not in any way opposed to discussing it. Our position, though, is very clear." Latin American media quickly picked up on the slight change of tone from Washington.

This all represents a dramatic turn of events in the regional, and potentially, global debate about drug policy. In Latin America, current presidents are now taking the baton from ex-presidents in calling for a new drug policy debate with all options on the table. Respected intellectuals like Carlos Fuentes and Enrique Krauze in Mexico, Sergio Ramirez in Nicaragua and Mario Vargas Llosa in Peru are speaking out. So are distinguished former cabinet ministers as well as leaders in business, media and the arts.

The immediate political challenge will be to sustain this momentum in the face of vigorous behind-the-scenes efforts by the U.S. government to suppress the debate, notwithstanding public statements that they're open to it. The more substantive challenge will be to flesh out proposals for alternative strategies. Presidents Santos, Otto Perez Molina and others know full well that no nation can unilaterally legalize drugs, that any significant changes in direction must be pursued multilaterally, and that major reform of the failed global drug prohibition regime of the 20th century will take years and likely decades. Governments as well as non-governmental organizations in the region are just beginning to look seriously at alternative drug policy options, enlisting scholars and other policy experts.

Fortunately the drug war consensus within the United States is also dissolving. George Shultz, the former Secretary of State (and Treasury) and Paul Volcker are among the members of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, whose bold recommendations last June stirred debate worldwide. Former President Jimmy Carter has endorsed the Global Commission's recommendations and former President Bill Clinton has repeatedly expressed regrets for the drug war excesses he condoned when he was in the White House. African-American leaders who previously supported the drug war are coming to the conclusion that it did nothing to lessen drug addiction on their communities but much to incarcerate an extraordinary number of young men and women.

Public support for legalizing marijuana is rising rapidly -- from 36 percent in favor in 2006 to 50 percent in 2011, according to Gallup's polling. And this past week, the conservative Evangelical Christian leader, Pat Robertson, surprised lots of people by saying marijuana should be legally regulated like alcohol, and by endorsing ballot initiatives in Colorado and Washington State that would do just that if they prevail this November.

The biggest obstacle right now is the head-in-the-sand resistance within the Obama administration and Congress to any real discussion of alternative drug policy options. Censorship and self-censorship in this area within the federal government is endemic, driven by fears that any internal policy memos, or even oral discussions, that conclude with politically inconvenient recommendations, are not just unwelcome but dangerous to one's standing and career. One result is that U.S. government officials will be increasingly handicapped in the international drug policy discussions at Cartagena and elsewhere, armed only with defenses of failed U.S. policies but bereft of any in-depth analysis of the options that other governments are putting on the table.

The worst prohibition, it must be said, is a prohibition on thinking -- and that, sadly, is what the U.S. government is guilty of today.

This post has been modified since its original publication.

Drug War Anniversary a Time for Reflection and Action

2011-02-11T11:52:33-05:00

Some anniversaries provide an occasion for celebration, others a time for reflection, still others a time for action. This June will mark forty years since President Nixon declared a "war on drugs," identifying drug abuse as "public enemy No. 1." As far as I know, no celebrations are planned. What's needed, indeed essential, are reflection -- and action.

It's hard to believe that Americans have spent roughly a trillion dollars (give or take a few hundred million) on this forty-year war. Hard to believe that tens of millions have been arrested, and many millions locked up in jails and prisons, for committing nonviolent acts that were not even crimes a century ago. Hard to believe that the number of people incarcerated on drug charges increased more than ten times even as the country's population grew by only half. Hard to believe that millions of Americans have been deprived of the right to vote not because they killed a fellow citizen or betrayed their country but simply because they bought, sold, produced or simply possessed a psychoactive plant or chemical. And hard to believe that hundreds of thousands of Americans have been allowed to die -- of overdoses, AIDS, hepatitis and other diseases -- because the drug war blocked and even prohibited treating addiction to certain drugs as a health problem rather than a criminal one.

Reflect we must on not just the consequences of this war at home but abroad as well. The prohibition-related crime, violence and corruption in Mexico today resemble Chicago during alcohol Prohibition -- times fifty. Parts of Central America are even more out of control, and many Caribbean nations can only hope that they are not next. The illegal opium and heroin markets in Afghanistan reportedly account for one-third to half of the country's GDP. In Africa, prohibitionist profiteering, trafficking and corruption are spreading rapidly. As for South America and Asia, just pick a moment and a country -- and the stories are much the same, from Colombia, Peru, Paraguay and Brazil to Pakistan, Laos, Burma and Thailand.

Wars can be costly -- in money, rights and lives -- but still necessary to defend national sovereignty and core values. It's impossible to make that case on behalf of the war on drugs. Marijuana, cocaine and heroin are effectively cheaper today than they were at the start of the war forty years ago, and just as available now as then to anyone who really wants them. Marijuana, which accounts for half of all drug arrests in the United States, has never killed anyone. Heroin is basically indistinguishable from hydromorphone (aka Dilaudid), a pain medication prescribed by physicians that hundreds of thousands of Americans have consumed safely. The vast majority of people who have used cocaine did not become addicts. Each of these drugs is less dangerous than government propaganda claims but sufficiently dangerous that they merit intelligent regulations rather than blanket prohibitions.

If the demand for any of these drugs were two, five or ten times what they are today, the supply would be there. That's what markets do. And who benefits from persisting with doomed supply control strategies notwithstanding their evident costs and failures? Basically two sets of interests: those producers and sellers of illicit drugs who earn far more than they would if their product were legally regulated rather than prohibited; and law enforcers for whom the expansion of prohibitionist policies translates into jobs, money and the political power to defend their self-interests.

Republican and Democratic governors confronting massive state budget deficits are now endorsing alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent drug law offenders that they would have rejected out of hand just a few years ago. It would be a tragedy, however, if these modest but important steps result in nothing more than a kinder, gentler drug war. What's really needed is the sort of reckoning that identifies as the problem not just drug addiction but prohibition as well - and that aims to reduce the role of criminalization and the criminal justice system in drug control to the maximum extent possible while enhancing public safety and health.

What better way to mark the 40th anniversary of the war on drugs than by breaking the taboos that have precluded frank assessment of the costs and failures of drug prohibition as well as its varied alternatives. Barely a single hearing, audit or analysis undertaken and commissioned by the government over the past forty years has dared to engage in this sort of assessment. The same cannot be said of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or almost any other domain of public policy. The war on drugs persists in good part because those who hold the purse strings focus their critical attentions only on the implementation of the strategy rather than the strategy itself.

The Drug Policy Alliance and our allies in this rapidly growing movement intend to break that tradition of denial -- by transforming this anniversary into a year of action. Our objective is ambitious -- to attain the critical mass at which the momentum for reform exceeds the powerful inertia that has sustained punitive prohibitionist policies for all too long. This requires working with legislators who dare to raise the important questions, and organizing public forums and online communities where citizens can take action, and enlisting unprecedented numbers of powerful and distinguished individuals to voice their dissent publicly, and organizing in cities and states to instigate new dialogues and directions in local policies.

Count on five themes to emerge over and over during this anniversary year.

1. Marijuana legalization is no longer a question of whether but when and how. Gallup's polling found that 36% of Americans in 2005 favored legalizing marijuana use while 60% were opposed. By late 2010, support had risen to 46% while opposition had dropped to 50%. A majority of citizens in a growing number of states now say that legally regulating marijuana makes more sense than persisting with prohibition. We know what we need to do: work with local and national allies to draft and win marijuana legalization ballot initiatives in California, Colorado and other states; assist federal and state legislators in introducing bills to decriminalize and regulate marijuana; ally with local activists to pressure police and prosecutors to de-prioritize marijuana arrests; AND assist and embolden prominent individuals in government, business, media, academia, entertainment and other walks of life to publicly endorse an end to marijuana prohibition.

2. Over-incarceration is the problem, not the solution. Ranking first in the world in both absolute and per capita incarceration is a shameful distinction that the United States should hasten to shed. The best way to address the problem of over-incarceration is to reduce the number of people incarcerated for non-violent drug law violations -- by decriminalizing and ultimately legalizing marijuana; by providing alternatives to incarceration for those who pose no threat outside prison walls; by reducing mandatory minimum and other harsh sentences; by addressing addiction and other drug misuse outside the criminal justice system rather than within it; and by insisting that no one be incarcerated simply for possessing a psychoactive substance, absent harm to others. All this requires both legislative and administrative action by government, but systemic reform will only happen if the objective of reducing over-incarceration is broadly embraced as a moral necessity.

3. The war on drugs is "the new Jim Crow." The magnitude of racial disproportionality in the enforcement of drug laws in the United States (and many other countries) is grotesque, with African Americans dramatically more likely to be arrested, prosecuted and incarcerated than other Americans engaged in the same violations of drug laws. Concerns over racial justice helped motivate Congress to reform the notorious crack/powder mandatory minimum drug laws last year but much more needs to be done. Nothing is more important at this point than the willingness and ability of African American leaders to prioritize the need for fundamental reform of drug policies. This is no easy task given the disproportionate extent and impact of drug addiction in poor African American families and communities. But it is essential, if only because no one else can speak and act with the moral authority required to transcend both deep seated fears and powerful vested interests.

4. Politics must no longer be allowed to trump science - and compassion, common sense and fiscal prudence - in dealing with illegal drugs. Overwhelming evidence points to the greater effectiveness and lower cost of dealing with addiction and other drug misuse as matters of health rather than criminal justice. That's why DPA is stepping up our efforts to transform how drug problems are discussed and dealt with in local communities. "Think global but act local" applies to drug policy as much as any other domain of public policy. Of course it would be better if a president appointed someone other than a police chief, military general or professional moralist as drug czar. But what really matters is shifting the locus of authority in city and state drug policies from criminal justice to health and other authorities. And equally important is ensuring that new dialogues about drug policy are informed by scientific evidence as well as best practices from around the country and abroad. One of our specialties at DPA is getting people to think and act outside the box about drugs and drug policies.

5. 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.

So that's the plan. Forty years after President Nixon declared his war on drugs, we're seizing upon this anniversary to prompt both reflection and action. And we're asking all our allies -- indeed everyone who harbors reservations about the war on drugs -- to join us in this enterprise.

Ethan Nadelmann is the founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Marijuana Legalization: Not If, But When

2010-11-03T10:43:51-04:00

California's marijuana legalization initiative, Proposition 19, didn't win a majority of votes yesterday but it already represents an extraordinary victory for the broader movement to legalize marijuana.

What's most important is the way its mere presence on the ballot, combined with a well run campaign, has transformed public dialogue about marijuana and marijuana policy. The media coverage, not just in California but around the country and even internationally, has been exceptional, both in quantity and quality. More people knew about Prop 19 than any other measure on the ballot this year -- not just in California but nationwide.

The debate is shifting from whether marijuana should be legalized to how. Public opinion polls in California consistently reveal that a majority of the state's citizens favor legalizing marijuana. One "No on 19" campaign spokesman admitted that even his own supporters were divided between those who oppose legalizing marijuana and those who favor legalization but were wary of either Prop 19's specific provisions or the federal government's threats to block it from being implemented.

Prop 19 both elevated and legitimized public discourse about marijuana. It's the small but growing number of elected officials who endorsed Prop 19 or said they'd vote for it -- and the increasingly frequent private expressions of support by candidates and elected officials who said they wished they could be public about their position. It's the growing number of endorsements by labor unions, including SEIU California, and civil rights organizations, including the California chapter of the NAACP and the National Latino Officers Association.

The international attention, especially in Latin America, has been extensive. Mexican President Calderon and Colombian President Santos both criticized Proposition 19, pointing to it as evidence of inconsistency in US drug policy. But the possibility that Prop 19 might win did prompt both presidents to call for more open debate about legalization and other alternatives to current drug policy. Mexican diplomatic officials publicly castigated Prop 19 but privately said they hoped it would win. No one thought a victory for Prop 19 would instantly put the violent Mexican drug trafficking organizations out of business but everyone recognized that it would represent a major step forward toward ultimately legalizing marijuana on both sides of the border. And that most definitely would undermine the criminal organizations, who would lose their competitive advantage just as repealing national alcohol Prohibition eventually did away with the bootleggers.

"How great it would be for California to set this example," former Mexican President Vicente Fox said in a radio interview last week. "May God let it pass. The other U.S. states will have to follow step."

There's now solid and increasing evidence that marijuana legalization is an issue that young people care about a lot -- and that putting it on the ballot increases the chances that they'll actually vote. Both major parties have no choice but to pay attention, especially when the political allegiances of young voters are very much up for grabs. Democrats correctly see the marijuana issue as bringing out more votes for them than for Republicans. Asked what would bring out young, first-time Barack Obama voters again, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, John Burton, responded with one word: "Pot."

It's notable, though, that Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for governor in California, did not actively campaign against Prop 19, most likely because she did not want to alienate young voters who don't identify as Democrats but who do feel strongly about legalizing marijuana. Younger voters across the political spectrum increasingly lean libertarian, especially on issues like marijuana. Both Democrats and Republicans will need to re-think this issue when Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico who has championed marijuana legalization and "harm reduction" drug policies for other drugs, runs in the Republican presidential primaries next year, as he seems sure to do. First-time and other young voters may gravitate in substantial numbers toward his message -- and all the more so if Ron Paul decides to hand off the baton to his younger ideological soul mate.

For those of us engaged in long term strategizing on marijuana law reform, the plan is the same as it would have been if Prop 19 had won: to put the issue to voters in states where public opinion polls show majority support for legalizing marijuana, and to introduce similar bills in state legislatures. Public support for legalizing marijuana now approaches or tops 50% not just in California but in a growing number of western states, including Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Colorado and Nevada -- so it's reasonable to expect ballot initiatives on the issue in those states in coming years. It's too soon to say whether the issue will be back on the ballot in California in 2012 but at the very least we know that a bill to regulate and tax marijuana will be considered by the state legislature, just as one was earlier this year. And a flurry of similar bills can be expected around the country as state legislators, emboldened by Proposition 19 and rapidly increasing support nationwide for marijuana legalization, kick start the conversation in their own legislatures.

Meanwhile, Prop 19 already can claim one hard victory: Governor Schwarzenegger recently signed into law a bill that will reduce the penalty for marijuana possession from a misdemeanor to a non-arrestable infraction, like a traffic ticket. That's no small matter in a state where arrests for marijuana possession totaled 61,000 last year -- roughly triple the number in 1990. It's widely assumed that the principal reason the governor signed the bill, which had been introduced by a liberal state senator, Mark Leno, was to undermine one of the key arguments in favor of Prop 19.

Demographics, economics and principle all favor the ultimate demise of marijuana prohibition. Over half of California voters under the age of fifty said they'd vote for Proposition 19, and likely did. The youngest voters are most in favor while the most elderly voters are the most opposed. Meanwhile, the economic arguments for legalizing marijuana -- including both the savings from reduced spending on law enforcement and the revenues from taxing legal marijuana, will only grow more persuasive. Marijuana isn't going to legalize itself, but momentum is building like never before among Americans across the political spectrum who think it's time to take marijuana out of the closet and out of the criminal justice system.

Ethan Nadelmann is the founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance (www.drugpolicy.org )