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.
Follow Ethan Nadelmann on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EthanNadelmann
We came close last year in California with Prop. 19, and we have a very good opportunity to get it right in 2012. Passing a California initiate to legalize cannabis might be the best focal point for the anti-prohibition campaign, but we need to prepare the groundwork over the next 18 months.
The comments from Eric Holder prior to the last vote were very disappointing. He stated that the federal government would not support the California initiative if it passed. We need to create a cooperative relationship with the Obama administration and the 2012 Obama campaign so we can work together. Holder's position in 2010 was pathetic and reprehensible, but I think this next election can be turned to our advantage. The same demographic Obama needs to energize in 2012 will be the most supportive of legalization.
The reactionary right-wing will be making a push to go back to the good-ol' days of McCarthyism and white supremacy. That too is an opportunity for progressives. We sat back in 2010 and let the tea baggers dictate the agenda, passively allowing them to control the debate. That has to change. If we play this right, 2012 can be a huge victory for progress. Ending prohibition should be a key plank in the platform.
1) It would not cause drug abuse to increase
2) The price in tax payer money down the drain
3) How the system is rigged to keep people in the system, so that once they get in trouble it is nearly impossible to get out of trouble.
4) If legalized, the cost for addictive drugs would be so low that it would cut down on the crimes committed in leiu of scoring the drugs(i.e. burglaries, theft , murder, etc.)
http://www.lifeforpot.com/
http://www.johnknock.com/
One of the reasons it has gone on so long is that it is a war on an abstract thing. Who signs the surrender when you are at war with a concept? Now we have a "War on Terror". Again a war declared on an abstract that will have no end.
By the way the trillion dollar estimate might be a little low if you consider the annual cost of keeping millions of non violent drug offenders incarcerated to the tune of $40,000 an inmate over that 40 years.
http://the-last-marijuana-trial.com/
as "The Trial for the Century" and the next showdown to decide what's "legal" and what's essential, and which has more purchase in the Court of Public Opinion.
We are closing in on the one century anniversary mark.
1914
and...while Nixon DID offer us lie after lie after lie, he also gave the job to Raymond Shafer, who performed the MOST comprehensive study ever done on marihuana (that's how he and his commission spelled it) and they found that the herb, marijuana was far more benign than what was being portrayed at the time.
However, ex-President Nixon needed a way to quickly stop and search, and often neutralize young people who also stood against the war in Viet Nam.
good info plus links (or patties) at
http://maxwelldog.wordpress.com/
d=^))
You're wrong Ethan. Reflection and action have been happening for decades.
It is time now for change.
"Essential civilian demand" for the world's most critically important "strategic resource," a comprehensive, objective valuation based on historical and scientific truth, backed by the First Amendment and "misprision of treason," accelerated out of urgent necessity.
Cannabis is both unique and essential, ecologically, nutritionally, economically, industrially and socially. 'Time' is the limiting factor in the equation of survival.
It is time now for change, and for praying that we are not too late.
While the judiciary is the governmental institution most directly concerned with the protection of individual liberties, all policy-makers have a responsibility to consider our constitutional heritage when framing public policy. Regardless of whether or not the courts would overturn a prohibition of possession of marihuana for personal use in the home, we are necessarily influenced by the high place traditionally occupied by the value of privacy in our constitutional scheme. The Commission also recommended that the distinctions between licit and illicit drugs be dropped, finding that "the use of drugs for pleasure or other non-medical purposes is not inherently irresponsible; alcohol is widely used as an acceptable part of social activities"
And then there was the NIDA Report,1994
Ice and Methamphetamine Use - An Exploratory Study
http://christie-et-al.s3.amazonaws.com/necessity/Ice-Methamphetamine-Exploratory-Study.pdf
In the report the rise of hard drugs, particularly meth, is attributed to the effectiveness of the marijuana eradication campaign in Hawaii.
Those documents are as true and potent now as they were then. Why have rsponsible parties in the DEA not been charged with treason for imposing known harms on society in spite of these reports?
In fact as you well know, there have been several authoritative government reports funded by US tax dollars including
While It should only take one polar reassessment of Cannabis therapeutics by a DEA judge to initiate resolution of a policy as blatantly misanthropic as prohibition surely is, there were several.
MARIJUANA MEDICAL RESCHEDULING PETITION
September 6, 1988.
Docket No. 86-22.
Francis L. Young, DEA Administrative Law Judge
http://www.equalrights4all.org...
“The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record.”
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, March 22, 1972
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...