The Drug War Has Failed. End It Now.

The War on Drugs is not only ineffective, but counterproductive, at achieving the goals of policymakers both domestically and abroad…

image

While the Eighteenth Amendment, which was passed and subsequently repealed in the early 20th century, is often regarded as the first major prohibition in the United States, it certainly was not the last.

The War on Drugs, begun under President Richard Nixon, continues to rely on prohibition policies as a means of controlling the sale, manufacture, and consumption of certain drugs. 

Supporters of drug prohibition claim that it reduces drug-related crime, decreases drug-related disease and overdose, and is an effective means of disrupting and dismantling organized criminal enterprises. But the data shows that continued prohibition is both ineffective and counterproductive at achieving these goals. 

In their new study, Four Decades and Counting: The Continued Failure of the War on Drugs, Christopher J. Coyne, a professor of economics at George Mason University, and Abigail R. Hall, a research fellow at the Independent Institute, explore the economics of prohibition.

Using tools and insights from economics to analyze data on overdose deaths, crime, and cartels, Coyne and Hall conclude that the War on Drugs is not only ineffective, but counterproductive at achieving the goals of policymakers, both domestically and abroad.

Economically, while prohibition does limit the supply of drugs and raise prices, therefore reducing the demand for drugs, these mandates push the market for drugs into underground black markets and generate unintended consequences that work against prohibition’s goals. Due to the lack of quality control, this market results in tainted, highly potent drugs, increasing the chances of poisoning and overdose.  

Domestically, overdose rates and the spread of drug-related diseases have been climbing since prohibition began. Between 2000 and 2014, more people in the U.S. died from drug overdoses than from car crashes. In addition, the rate of opioid overdoses has more than tripled since 2000, with 61 percent of all overdose deaths in 2014 caused by the more potent drugs. The restrictions prohibition places on buying legal needles and syringes leads users to share used needles, increasing the occurrence of HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, and hepatitis B.

Prohibitionists claim the drug war reduces drug-related violence, but they ignore the fact that, while drug trafficking isn’t inherently violent, drug prohibition is. It’s true that the black market for drugs relies on cash transactions and violence, drug market violence is a function of the market’s illegality, not of the drugs themselves.

Without a legal system in place to resolve disputes, individuals who are comfortable using violence monopolize illegal drug markets through the use of cartels. The same was true of alcohol distributors under prohibition.  In 1929, if two alcohol distributors had a dispute, they settled it on the street corner with Tommy guns and Molotov cocktails. In 2017 if two alcohol distributors have a dispute, they settle it in court.

While many have examined the effect of prohibition on domestic outcomes, few have asked how these programs impact foreign policy outcomes.

Internationally, prohibition not only fails in its own right, but also actively undermines the goals of the Global War on Terror. America’s prohibitionist policies have failed overseas, with the U.S. government spending millions of taxpayer dollars to combat the import of narcotics. For example, the U.S. imposed its prohibitionist drug policies in Afghanistan in 2004, yet the opium economy is more concentrated in the hands of the Taliban than ever before as a result of cartelization. In Afghanistan, as elsewhere, prohibition led to widespread government corruption, with officials at the highest levels circumventing the law in order to keep up profits from drug production and trafficking.

Policymakers need to consider decriminalization or legalization of drugs in order to achieve the goals the War on Drugs intended to meet. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized possession of all illicit drugs but retained criminal sanctions for activities such as trafficking. As a result, Portugal’s rate of drug use remains below both the European and American average. New HIV and AIDS infections have fallen significantly from 1,575 and 626, respectively, in 2000 to 78 and 74 in 2013.

The U.S. should learn from Portugal’s liberal drug policies in order to reduce drug use, drug-related crime, disease, death and violence

Truly effective reform will not only require changes at the state level, but ultimately necessitate critical shifts in U.S. federal policies, both domestically and internationally.

As a candidate, Donald Trump held a relatively moderate line on drug prohibition, often arguing that issues like marijuana legalization should be left to state governments. Unfortunately, as President, his approach has taken a turn for the worse.

The Trump Administration has yet to announce much in the way of concrete policy changes, but the personnel choices and the drug warrior rhetoric coming from the new administration are causes for concern looking forward.

Jeff Sessions, our new Attorney General is a long-time champion of the federal drug war. Since taking over the Justice Department, Sessions has continued to make statements that hint at a return to a much harsher federal approach to drug prohibition.

President Trump is also expected to name Congressman Tom Marino (R-PA) to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy, an office colloquially known as the federal government’s “Drug Czar.” While the Drug Czar has a limited impact on policy, Marino’s expected nomination is another red flag.

Rep. Marino has a long history of taking a hard line on the drug war. He voted against the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which allows state medical marijuana industries to function without the constant fear of federal prosecution, and has also voted to prevent Veterans’ Affairs doctors at facilities in states with legal marijuana from prescribing medical marijuana to their patients.

Four decades of a hardline approach to drug policy in America have failed.

Forty-four states and the District of Columbia allow some form of legal cannabis consumption, including eight states (and D.C.) which have legalized the recreational use of marijuana. The dire predictions of drug warriors in those states have not come true.

It’s time to ditch the failed prohibitionist policies of the drug war. Unfortunately, President Trump appears to be moving in the wrong direction.

Learn more…

Jeff Sessions’ Worrying Authoritarianism

There are red flags in Sessions’ record that should worry those who believe in limited government and individual liberty…

image

The first of President-elect Trump’s nominees to get a confirmation hearing was Senator Jeff Sessions, who went before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and Wednesday. 

When President-elect Trump selected Alabama senator Jeff Sessions to be his attorney general, many conservatives cheered, Trump’s AG nominee has a record that ought to worry believers in small government and individual liberty.

Sessions sharply departs from the growing bipartisan consensus on criminal-justice reform. He was a leading opponent of the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, which reduced federal sentences for some non-violent drug offenses and other crimes, and has long been one of the most ardent drug warriors in Congress

At a time when 32 states have legalized medical and/or recreational use of marijuana, Sessions told a Senate hearing last April that, “Marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized…It’s in fact a very real danger.” His opposition to state legalization measures promises to put the Justice Department in conflict with conservative principles of federalism.

Moreover, Sessions has defended asset-forfeiture laws — which are considered by most observers to be widely abused — as a means of taking money from people who have “done nothing in their lives but sell dope.” He’s even advocated allowing the federal government to step in and seize assets when state law-enforcement agencies won’t.

Just as worrying, Sessions generally opposes Justice Department supervision of local police departments accused of racial abuses. He has opposed legislation protecting the jobs of federal whistle-blowers and shield laws protecting journalists from having to disclose their sources. He has defended the ability of the NSA and other federal agencies to spy on Americans, and even introduced an amendment to the Email Privacy Act that would have created a loophole allowing law enforcement to demand such data without a warrant.

Sessions will almost certainly be confirmed. Presidents are generally entitled to the cabinet of their choosing, and nothing that has come out about Trump’s AG nominee so far appears disqualifying. But that doesn’t mean that Senators shouldn’t ask him tough questions.

Both Democrats and Republicans should join in concern over Sessions’s knee-jerk deferral to law enforcement and government authority.

Learn more…

SCOTUS Win for Marijuana Legalization

image

In 2012, the people of Colorado voted to legalize marijuana through a state constitutional amendment, which went into effect in January of 2014. Two of Colorado’s neighbors, Nebraska and Oklahoma, subsequently filed a lawsuit urging the U.S. Supreme Court to prohibit the state of Colorado from constructing a regulatory regime for the marijuana industry.

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to take up that lawsuit. The decision was not surprising—the constitutional argument advanced by Nebraska and Oklahoma was weak, and the Obama Administration urged the court to decline the case—but it is significant.

[Monday’s] action at the Supreme Court amounts to a big boost to the marijuana legalization movement, which continues to gather strength and momentum," write Cato scholars Tim Lynch and Adam Bates.

Learn more….

Sean Penn Discusses El Chapo Interview and the Drug War

This Sunday on 60 Minutes with Charlie Rose, Sean Penn will discuss his controversial interview with Sinaloa Cartel kingpin and famed prison runaway El Chapo (Joaquín Archivaldo Guzmán Loera). 

In advance of the much-anticipated interview, brush up on your background knowledge with this selection of Cato research on ending the war on drugs. 

End Drug War, Cut Gun Violence

image

A recent piece on gun violence and the war on drugs by Cato’s Adam Bates was mentioned in Aspen Institute’s five best ideas of the day! 

Bates says, “gun violence related to the drug war kills many more people. If gun control advocates really want to prevent more homicides, it’s not background checks that will get us there. It’s decriminalization of drugs.”

Read the full piece here..

Synthetic Drugs Are Very Dangerous. Let’s Legalize Them.

image

Originally posted by randilynn426

Lately, the media has been in a tizzy about synthetic or “designer” drugs. These produce physical and psychological effects similar to traditional, mind-altering substances like marijuana, cocaine and heroin. But they’re different in a crucial way. Not only are they frequently marketed as potpourri, pet food, air freshener and other legal products, but because they are artificial substances, even a slight change in the chemical composition can make the targeted drug no longer covered by existing law.

Here’s why they should be LEGAL….

Designer Drugs: A New Futile Front in the War on Illegal Drugs?

image

News organizations have recently documented the proliferation of synthetic or “designer” drugs that produce physical and psychological effects similar to those of traditional mind-altering substances such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. Policymakers have scrambled to outlaw substances that can sometimes regain legal status with a modest change in chemical makeup. Some of the new drugs even masquerade as such innocuous, perfectly legal products as air fresheners or potpourri. Can these new mind-altering substances be outlawed without resorting to tortured legal rationales? Are there alternatives to a prohibitionist strategy? Could policymakers better promote public safety by requiring strict production standards, but not attempting to ban their use?

Join us on Friday, July 20th, at 12PM EST for a discussion featuring Cato scholar Ted Galen Carpenter and other notable drug policy experts. Get more information and RSVP

Not in the D.C. area? This event will be livestreamed. Join the conversation on Twitter using #CatoEvents. 

Want to learn more before the event? Read Ted Galen Carpenter’s new paper, Designer Drugs: A New, Futile Front in the War on Illegal Drugs

This week in the Cato Weekly Dispatch….

image

We take a sneak peek at what’s next in the fight against unconstitutional NSA spying, explore a dangerous but growing trend caused by our failed Drug War policies, get the inside scoop on the dehumanizing life of an inmate from a former Department of Corrections Commissioner turned felon, and more…

Take a look for yourself…..

Like what you see? Subscribe! (It’s free) 

A New, Futile Front in the War on Drugs

image

Even as officials devote billions of dollars each year to enforcing laws against marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs, the market for synthetic equivalents or variations has soared.  In a new paper, Cato scholar Ted Galen Carpenter argues that the problems associated with suppressing the use of designer drugs underscores the inherent futility of the broader War on Drugs. 

“Instead of persisting in the failed strategy of drug prohibition,” says Carpenter, “policymakers should examine ways to accommodate legal markets in mind-altering substances while promoting public safety by requiring strict production standards to prevent contamination or mislabeling.”

Read more….