New options needed for war on drugs
Tweet
Nate Lyman
If the U.S federal government wants to make progress in the war on drugs, it should abandon its policy of prohibition in favor of a policy of legalization.
Legalization has become, as the Economist puts it, the “least bad” option. Prohibition has proven expensive, violent and ineffective. The taboo surrounding the discussion of legalization as an alternate policy makes it nearly unmentionable in mass media and the political arena. Take, for example, President Barack Obama’s one-sentence dismissal of one of the most popular questions in his recent online forum: Would legalization be a stimulus to the economy?
It’s time to break the taboo. Legalization would be cost effective and likely eliminate the vast majority of violence on the U.S.-Mexico border — not to mention the poppy fields in Afghanistan and the Coca farms in Columbia — and allow the government to treat the war on drugs as an issue of public health issue instead of a criminal issue.
Some of you are probably thinking, “Legalize? Is this maniac talking about over the counter crack rocks?” I’m not arguing for any framework or timetable for legalization. What I am arguing for is the discussion of legalization as an alternative policy to prohibition.
An obvious first step would be legalization of marijuana. While it wouldn’t stop much of the violence on our border and overseas, it would reduce the likelihood that people get caught up in something more than they bargained for by eliminating the exposure to underground drug culture and other options that go hand in hand with buying a bag of grass.
There’s no better time than now, amid our economic disaster, to think about the benefits of legalization. Our government spends $40 billion a year trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. We arrest about 1.5 million citizens each year for drug-related offenses, and one-third of those arrested wind up taking a trip to the “Big House” (and I’m not talking about that aberration to the southeast of us). On average it costs $22,650 per year to house each drug offender, a total of almost $11.5 trillion taxpayer dollars. Imagine the benefit to our economy if that number were eliminated.
Legalization not only would eliminate that number from the costs side of our balance sheet, it would allow us to reap benefits of the $320 billion dollar per year illegal global industry. We could replace dangerous drug dealers with regulated businesses and make a fortune on taxes. Unemployment numbers would drop not only because ex-drug dealers would need real jobs, but new job opportunities would open up for those without jobs.
The benefits of legalization are not only monetary, as the policy of prohibition has tremendous human costs. We like to think prohibition saves the lives of would-be drug users, but we don’t like to think of it as the reason thousands die each year on the U.S.-Mexico border, and as the primary cause of the exponential increases in gangsterism. Legalization would help eliminate this gangsterism because it would take away the primary livelihood of gangsters — drug trafficking.
A third benefit of legalization is a derivative of the two above: the ability to put significant resources toward dealing with the demand side of the war on drugs by treating drug use as a public health issue. We should deal with drug addicts like we deal with those addicted to cigarettes and alcohol. Once the use is seen to be a problem, get the person help.
While legalization may not be a glamorous option and would certainly be a political nightmare, it’s better than already failed alternatives. The sad reality is there may be no way to win the war — just like we’ll likely never rid the world of nicotine and alcohol abuse — but we might as well try to minimize casualties.
Many fear legalization would cause a significant increase in the number of narcotics users, especially young adults, and therefore not minimize casualties. I disagree. I’d bet the farm most young adults could get their hands on most illegal substances if they so desired, so regulation may even decrease availability if the local weed guy is put out of business.
Prohibition has failed miserably to win the war on drugs. With the estimate of adults that use drugs stabilized at 5 percent of the world’s population, legalization is certainly not a “good” option (a “good” option would eliminate all dangerous drug use), but it might be a necessary one.
Nate Lyman is a State News guest columnist, an international relations and economics senior and a member of the Roosevelt Institution. Reach him at lymannat@msu.edu.
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
Nate Lyman
(04/16/09 7:48pm)Report
The last sentence of the 6th paragraph should read, “…a total of almost $11.5 billion…” not “trillion.”
No idea why they published the typo’d (thanks, auto-correct) version.
Tom W
(04/16/09 10:07pm)Report
Nate:
I’d like to see a more nuanced distinction between “soft” non-addictive drugs such as cannabis, and extremely harmful, addictive & deadly drugs such as heroin and crystal meth.
Another issue in the debate that you omitted from your piece is driving under the influence. I don’t think many would advocate permitting individuals to drive while high, but there is no breathalyzer equivalent for marijuana use.
Finally, this is ultimately a state by state issue (at least for marijuana). The Obama Justice Dept. has made clear it will not expend significant resources investigating and prosecuting marijuana infractions. But marijuana consumption is still illegal in most jurisdictions. It is going to take a significant grass roots movement within each state to turn the tide, beginning with either compassionate use laws, or decriminalization (still illegal, but a civil infraction not criminal—think parking ticket).
Public sentiment is slowly turning toward more lenient marijuana laws (see Prop 2), but it is a slow and arduous process, and politically is extremely risky (as your pointed out Nate).
Matt
(04/17/09 1:54am)Report
A rare solid editorial from the SN. Well done, sir.
Ted
(04/17/09 8:55am)Report
Or people could have some self responsiblity and educate themselves about the dangers of drugs. I know it’s not the easiest path, so a lot of you will not like it, but self responsibilty will make huge progess on the war on drugs.
Kelly
(04/17/09 9:18am)Report
Awesome article Nate. Very solid argument.
LOLCATS
(04/17/09 10:48am)Report
Wait, I thought weed was legal!
thought
(04/17/09 11:29am)Report
Tom W,
Driving under the influence is definitely a problem, but I don’t think it should be part of this debate. I highly doubt that the legality of marijuana would have appreciable effects on the level of stoned driving. And changing the legality wouldn’t alter our ability to detect it.
On another note, I’m surprised that there hasn’t yet been a hysterical, poorly-thought-out response about ‘potheads’ to this editorial yet. Wouldn’t be surprised to see it coming.
Spahgetti Kat
(04/17/09 12:48pm)Report
One of the better columns I’ve read from the SN. Well done, Nate. FYI-I’m sure you probably already know, but your typo made it into the print version as well.
myriam
(04/17/09 1:46pm)Report
well written article nate, thouugh I do not agree with your thesis.
in my opinion the main point about drugs is different, i.e. why they are illegal. what I’m implying is the following: if drugs are harmful, the State has to protect the citizens and therefore cannot legalize drug use. never.
it is true that many public money are spent in fighting drug dealers and in helping drug addicts and all that stuff, but the solution should not be to legalize, but to improve the already existing system, so that it might work in a proper way, without being a waste of money.
Gangsterism?
(04/17/09 2:12pm)Report
What the hell is gangsterism? Stop making up words!
Tom W
(04/17/09 2:30pm)Report
RE: “thought”
You misunderstand the point i tried to make (not surprising because I did not completely develop my thoughts in my post)
What concerns me is the enforcement problem that occurs. As you agree, driving while under the influence is something that should not be legal. But what happens if somebody is sober and in a car accident? If that driver had smoked pot a few days before, a drug test would reveal that he had been driving under the influence…as of right now there is no way to distinguish that.
If we’re merely talking about decriminalization or compassionate use, then that isn’t really relevant to the discussion. But, if we’re talking complete legalization (which this article raises), then driving is an essential aspect of the implications and logistics of legalization
Joe
(04/17/09 3:44pm)Report
Ted – We’ve tried the self responsibility (D.A.R.E. and “Just Say ‘No’” campaigns) and it is not working.
Tom W – I agree if we are discussing complete legalization, laws against driving under the influence should be enacted. I also understand your point regarding drug field sobriety tests. The current testing cannot differentiate between current use and past use. However, I would just point out that driving while “high” will potentially be less dangerous than driving while drunk. Alcohol has a greater effect on motor skills than does marijuana. I do not mean to condone driving while under the influence of anything, but I think it should be kept in mind while debating the topic and potentially crafting laws.
Thought
(04/17/09 4:17pm)Report
Tom W,
That is a very good point, and one that I (and I’m sure many others) hadn’t considered.
History
(04/17/09 6:17pm)Report
Myriam – Back in the day, alcohol was the drug of choice for whites and pot was the drug of choice for blacks. Without going into a drawn out diatribe about our country’s history, that is why pot became illegal and alcohol legal.
To Myriam
(04/17/09 6:24pm)Report
I think a lot of the population has a differing opinion on this. Many people would argue that the states role is to protect an individual from others not from oneself. To extrapolate on your point, you could easily make a case to outlaw any potentially dangerous activity in an effort of enhance personal safety (no bungee jumping, motorcycle riding, fast-food eating…ad nauseam)
Tom W
(04/17/09 7:32pm)Report
History: Correction,
Prohibition of marijuana had more to do with mexican immigration than african americans. The first states to pass marijuana bans were in the Southwest.
Really, though, the criminalization was the result of extreme propaganda put out by a powerful christian extremist (Harry Anslinger) on a crusade. Most knew little about the plant even though it grew in abundance just about everywhere, and were conned through fear into cracking down
Tom W
(04/17/09 7:35pm)Report
BTW, Anslinger was also a huge (alcohol) prohibition proponent, but we all know how that little experiment worked. Prohibition was repealed because it caused huge amounts of crime (including organized crime)
myriam
(04/18/09 6:06am)Report
do you actually believe that drugs are illegal just because of that “crusader”? what about all other countries ? in Europe weed is illegal almost everywhere…
the fact that alcohol too is harmful is not an excuse to legalize drugs. on the contrary, it should lead to stress the alcohol consumption matter in order to find some suitable solution to the problem.
mara-kame
(04/18/09 9:44am)Report
the real reason why THC is illegal its because our precious government won’t be able to tax pot, because everyone that can grow a plant won’t even had to go out to get it…
MJ, SHROOMS and HIKURY (aka Peyote) are gifts form MOTHER NATURE.
Kim
(04/18/09 10:09am)Report
I know its cool to be cynical and all, but I really hate when people make mara-kame’s argument. Prohibition prooved that people would be willing and able to make their own booze, yet most people aren’t making bathtub swill to get around a liquor tax. It’s just easier to buy it from the guy behind the counter and I suspect if weed ever becomes legal, the same will hold true for many people. The guys who buy into the ‘pot is illegal because the gov’t can’t profit from it’ thinking seem to be the same types who jump at a chance to spread a good conspiracy theory.
Weed Smoker
(04/18/09 12:39pm)Report
Finally, a State News article about human principle and not riding bikes on sidewalks. Nate is right; this supposed Drug War is about as effective as the war in Iraq. Does everyone realize that recently every news network across the country has talked about legalizing cannabis? It is for good reason. It is 2009 and we should have turned the page on a “war” that costs our country’s taxpayers big bucks, promotes extreme violence and is detrimental to our economy. Look at prohibition…that did not last long because everyone disagreed with it. Now this country promotes alcohol like it’s their job.
I smoke the ganja myself and I bet I am more successful than many, many students at this university. It is a lifestyle choice, just like drinking on a Tuesday night. It is not harmful, either. Isn’t it funny how the U.S. has more drug “users” in prison than any other country in the world? No, wait: it’s pathetic.
LEGALIZE IT.
Skeptic
(04/18/09 1:52pm)Report
Ted: Nearly everyone who grew up in America from the 1980s to the present have been thoroughly educated about the dangers of drugs. You might even say miseducated due to some of the exaggerations and outright lies they taught us (MDMA puts holes in your brain, LSD causes schizophrenia, PCP causes you to go into a murderous rage). Even with your point, it is a non sequitur to suggest that taking personal responsibility should lead to stiffer government laws. If anything, less restriction is the logical next step if we were all able to be so responsible.
Myriam: I refer you back to a previous point made by “To Myriam”.
Kim: I’m not really sure if it’s cool to be cynical. It might get you far in certain circles, but most people do not find it attractive. But I digress. I really wanted to say that your Prohibition argument doesn’t really hold water. Growing marijuana is a hell of a lot simpler and cheaper than making alcohol. Couple that with the fact that government pot would likely be less potent and more difficult to get than some higher quality stuff that is available (if you have the right connection, of course), you would likely still have many people buying the untaxed street pot. I’m not certain it would happen like this, but it seems more than likely.
Kim
(04/18/09 2:14pm)Report
Skeptic-
Sorry, I was probably a little unclear about my point. I’m not saying the government will manufacture better pot (although I have heard that gov’t researchers do grow the most potent stuff, I have no real evidence on the subject). I want to differentiate your point between a government that PRODUCES vs. a government that REGULATES. Just as with alcohol, the government does not set up a manufacturing basis for supplying citizens, it regulates private and public companies that do. I think the same would be true for pot; I think that companies would have the resources to produce a better product than the average smoker. How many people would have the resources to genetically experiment to the level that a corporation could? I admit that since I don’t smoke, I know little on the topic, but as a layperson it seems that people would be more willing to buy from a professional supplier. I guess a better analogy than the alcohol would be the fact that people would rather buy cigarettes than take the time to roll their own. (ignoring addictive additive arguments of course…) To me it doesn’t seem like a good argument to say that the governments sole purpose on keeping weed illegal is because they can’t get their share of the profit.
Skeptic
(04/18/09 3:37pm)Report
Kim: I think we are arguing two different points and that we actually agree. :) The fact that the government might not be able to tax natural drugs effectively is likely one contributing factor to the fact that these drugs remain largely illegal (because people very rarely make decisions based on one single factor). I do agree with you that it would be a bit silly to reduce the argument to that sole factor. Absurd.
Old Timer
(04/18/09 4:28pm)Report
I wish this column had mentioned the local history. Weed (simple possession of an ounce or less) was essentially legal in East Lansing for many years. The off-campus fine was five bucks, unless the arresting officer applied federal or state law. MSU enforced state law, but overlooked most violations.
I’ll bypass the “good old times” stories. Now 15 years sober, I don’t want to glorify my time spent wasted. But I do want to say, yes, we tried legalization, right here, and the world did not end.