As both a U.S. Attorney and Member of Congress, I defended drug prohibition. But it has become increasingly clear to me, after much study, that our current strategy has not worked and will not work. The other candidates for president prefer not to address this issue, but ignoring the failure of existing policy exhibits both a poverty of thought and an absence of political courage. The federal government must turn the decision on drug policy back to the states and the citizens themselves.
My change in perspective might shock some people, but leadership requires a willingness to assess evidence and recognize when a strategy is not working. We are paying far too high a price for today's failed policy to continue it simply because it has always been done that way.
It is obvious that, like Prohibition's effort to eradicate alcohol usage, drug prohibition has not succeeded. Despite enormous law enforcement efforts -- including the dedicated service of many thousands of professional men and women -- the government has not halted drug use. Indeed, the problem is worse today than in 1972, when Richard Nixon first coined the phrase "War on Drugs."
Whether we like it or not, tens of millions of Americans have used and will continue to use drugs. Yet in 2005 we spent more than $12 billion on federal drug enforcement efforts. Another $30 billion went to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders.
These people must live forever with the scarlet letter P for prison. Only luck saved even presidents and candidates for president from bearing the same mark, which would have disqualified them from not only high political office, but also many more commonplace jobs.
The federal drug laws affect even those who have never smoked (or inhaled!) a marijuana cigarette. One of the lessons I learned while serving in Congress is how power tends to concentrate in Washington, and how that concentration of power begets more power and threatens individual liberty. The ever-expanding drug war is a perfect illustration of this principle.
We simply must bring our system back into balance. First, the federal government should get out of the "drug war" and allow states to determine their own drug policies. Rather than continuing to arrest and imprison people for offenses that do not directly harm other people, we should focus federal law enforcement on crimes involving serious fraud or violence, with identifiable victims. Even then, only where there is a clear and specific federal interest, should the federal government be involved.
As president, I would also begin dismantling the vast bureaucracies that have grown up as part of the drug war. My drug "czar" would diminish rather than expand the office. Importantly, the vast power of the federal government would no longer be employed to override the decision of the citizens of the states to reform their drug laws.
I also would review my presidential pardon and commutation powers as a possible means to reduce the number of people in federal prison for non-violent drug offenses. We can no longer afford the human and economic costs of imprisoning so many thousands of people for drug possession. This is the most destructive impact of drug prohibition.
With regard to the medicinal use of marijuana, it appears that politics, rather than true science, led to the government's classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, preventing its medical use, and has blocked attempts to reconsider that classification. As president, I would direct the DEA to initiate, for the first time, a truly open, fair, and objective process to test and evaluate the medical potential of marijuana. Based on the studies that I have consulted, I believe the result would be reclassification of the drug.
Regardless of federal policy, the federal government should accept the decisions of the citizens of the states if they choose to allow the medical use of marijuana. As president, I would ensure that no executive branch official interfered in a state initiative or referendum campaign. I also would direct the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Agency to respect state law. Crimes of violence, whether involving drugs or not, must continue to be investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate law enforcement agencies.
None of this means that I believe drug use to be harmless, or appropriate for minors. For that reason I would encourage people and institutions throughout America, from churches to social agencies to sports leagues, to work together to address drug abuse. One of our nation's greatest strengths is the willingness of people to organize outside of government to solve human problems.
But treating what is, at base, a moral, spiritual, and health problem as a matter of federal criminal law has solved nothing. The next president must put politics aside and take a long, hard look at the failure of the federal war on drugs. We must reestablish the primacy of individual choice and state's rights in deciding these issues. This always has been the greatest strength of America, and should be again.
Bob Barr, a former member of Congress from Georgia, is the Libertarian Party's nominee for president.
.
On HuffPo ?
.
This stuff must be better than I thought ...
I once disagreed with you on this subject when you were 'one of them' - supporting the war on drugs.
When I first learned of your position re-evaluation, I was utterly shocked.
I may even find myself encouraged by your example; public discussion of your reasoning.
Please reflect, too, on how related laws (or the practice of enforcement) have been mangled in the push against drugs; essentially the power to seize property without due process, with (perhaps accidental) incentives for agencies TO seize property.
It was always an error to think that:
- NOT having laws that prohibit is somehow and endorsement.
- striking drug laws that don't work, and apply primary to adults, sent any kind of 'message' to kids.
- raising the levels of punishment would ever wipe out the sale of drugs.
This last point is key - the higher the risk (greater enforcement and punishment), the greater the profits, driving incentive, making 'the problem' grow. If coffee were illegal, it would still be sold, but at $100+ a pound.
That money drives power - into the hands of those we don't want to have power!
Kudo's, and best wishes.
You can read it here: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs
Barr continues to add insight to the debate on many issues. The WAR ON DRUG’s is nothing more than a panacea. I personally do not use nor would I feel the desire to use if made legal (at this point).
All I am getting at here is why are we allowing criminals and terrorists continue to dominate the drug trade. I think it should be nationalized (although many free-market capitalists would not approve if they could make a buck) and producers and users should have to purchase licenses to sell, hold, produce, or use. It least we could impose some control mechanisms to promote responsible use.
Aside from the WAR ON DRUG's think what could be done with illegal bookmaking operations as well. In most cases our tax dollars (local/state/federal) subsidize these entertainment based businesses as "SPORTS". It is a "LIE" (college too). We should have a nationalized sports book where the "VIG" (usually 10%) goes directly to paying down national debt.
By nationalizing both DRUGS & ILLEGAL GAMBLING we are cutting to legs off of the table of organized crime.
Think About It!!!
What's shocking is that you imagine that we'll fall for this crap, Mr. Barr.
It's 35 years later, and we have one of the largest prison populations in the world. Your party (your real party, not the one you joined when you lost an election) has given us a private, for-profit prison system where recidivism becomes a golden parachute for your kind, while the lives of families and ordinary people lie ruined in the wake.
You think that we are going to now view your long-overdue epiphany as a sign of leadership? Please. Perhaps if you'd voiced this view as a republican, we would have seen that as leadership.
Now, however, it's just a convenient libertarian party hat that you're wearing, and it looks a little ridiculous on you. What next? You'll have a revelation that women should have control over their own bodies?
The United Sates is a nation of failed policies led by a Congress of criminals whose only concern is stuffing their pockets with cash. The "War on Drugs," the "War in Iraq," the "War in Afghanistan," ALL failed policies.
America is not a nation of thinkers. The "war on drugs" is just another reason the Empire is crumbling.
Nothing will change. The course has been set.
This applies not only just to drugs but everything from abortion to, right to die or live as we please as long as we don’t affect others.
A lamb and two lions debate what they will have for dinner.
In a Democracy the lamb looses two to one. Lamb chops. .
In a Republic, the lions elect a reprehensive and the lamb elects a reprehensive. The representative’s argue and stalemate, everybody starves.
In a Libertarian government everybody can eat what ever they wish as long as it’s not each other.
Please keep pushing for reason and rationality on drugs, prisons and taxes.
I am a little more skeevy about legalizing other recreational drugs. If you are going to do that for the likes of heroin, speed, etc, then you need to devise a way to channel that use to minimize deleterious effects on society. You can't just one day roll out of bed and say, "okay, all drugs are now legal."
You also run into a problem of what corporate responsibility will be after legalization just like with booze.
So this is a good discussion, but how you enact across the board legalization is tricky.
Then we can move on to legalizing prostitution. Do you have an opinion on that Mr. Barr? I would be interested to hear you out about it.
Someone earlier mentioned the industrial uses for hemp. This angle of the question is very important, I believe. Hemp has a thousand uses, from using the fibers for everything from cord and paper to clothing, to pressing the seeds for oil, to using the seed and pomace (what's left after the oil is extracted) for animal feed. It doesn't require vast amounts of fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides to thrive, and it grows in just a vast range of climates.
It is its adaptability and versatility, of course, which puts it at odds with Weyerhauser, Georgia Pacific, Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, and all the other lumber and agribusiness giants. Why would we need to strip thousands of square miles of forests for pulp if the same amound of fiber for paper can be raised on a dramatically smaller plot of land? Why would farmers need to buy thousands of tons of chemical fertilizers (which are severely disrupting the nitrogen cycle) if you can grow this great cash crop in just plain dirt?
If the prohibition of the cultivation of industrial hemp were lifted, the benefits would be enormous...except to the agribusiness conglomerates, lumber companies and cotton industry. Economically and ecologically, it makes no sense to suppress the development of this eminently renewable resource.