Have we lost the war on drugs?
One moderate alternative to the war on drugs is to follow Portugal’s lead and decriminalize all drug use while maintaining the illegality of drug trafficking. Decriminalizing drugs implies that persons cannot be criminally punished when they are found to be in possession of small quantities of drugs that could be used for their own consumption. Decriminalization would reduce the bloated U.S. prison population since drug users could no longer be sent to jail. Decriminalization would make it easier for drug addicts to openly seek help from clinics and self-help groups, and it would make companies more likely to develop products and methods that address addiction.
Some evidence is available on the effects of Portugal’s decriminalization of drugs, which began in 2001. A study published in 2010 in the British Journal of Criminology found that in Portugal since decriminalization, imprisonment on drug-related charges has gone down; drug use among young persons appears to have increased only modestly, if at all; visits to clinics that help with drug addictions and diseases from drug use have increased; and opiate-related deaths have fallen…
Though the decriminalization of drug use would have many benefits, it would not, by itself, reduce many of the costs of the war on drugs, since those involve actions against traffickers. These costs would not be greatly reduced unless selling drugs was also decriminalized. Full decriminalization on both sides of the drug market would lower drug prices, reduce the role of criminals in producing and selling drugs, improve many inner-city neighborhoods, encourage more minority students in the U.S. to finish high school, substantially lessen the drug problems of Mexico and other countries involved in supplying drugs, greatly reduce the number of state and federal prisoners and the harmful effects on drug offenders of spending years in prison, and save the financial resources of government.
The lower drug prices that would result from full decriminalization may well encourage greater consumption of drugs, but it would also lead to lower addiction rates and perhaps even to fewer drug addicts, since heavy drug users would find it easier to quit. Excise taxes on the sale of drugs, similar to those on cigarettes and alcohol, could be used to moderate some, if not most, of any increased drug use caused by the lower prices.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The War on Drugs is over.
Drugs won…
JohnGalt23 on January 6, 2013 at 10:08 AM
Duh!
Yeah long ago.
dogsoldier on January 6, 2013 at 10:09 AM
By all means, keep it hidden and pretend it doesn’t exist. I’m sure with a few more happy thoughts it’ll all go away.
John the Libertarian on January 6, 2013 at 10:09 AM
Well, we haven’t won it.
MikeA on January 6, 2013 at 10:09 AM
We just gave a bunch of guns to the other side.
davidk on January 6, 2013 at 10:12 AM
Amazing. You don’t say.
CW on January 6, 2013 at 10:13 AM
Well let’s criminalize some more guns and see how that war goes.
CW on January 6, 2013 at 10:14 AM
If the War on Drugs is any predictor, with the War on Guns, we’ll soon see firearms in every prison in America…
JohnGalt23 on January 6, 2013 at 10:17 AM
My only issue with decriminalization is that it’s nearly impossible to stop an addict from robbing family and friends blind to support their addiction. It’s a lot easier to go to the D.A. and say this kid is abusing heroin than to get him on a thievery rap.
John the Libertarian on January 6, 2013 at 10:20 AM
What a bunch of horse crap.
If we lost the war on drugs it is because we left the battlefield You stop drugs at the border and not on the sidewalk.By then it is too late.
All this writer is suggesting is that we reduce crime by ignoring it.
It is no different than the way some school districts lower their drop out rates by just passing everybody.
It is your typical liberal tactic of redefining something as something better.
It is a lie.
NeoKong on January 6, 2013 at 10:23 AM
You betcha. The president sets the moral tone for the country and we all know he was a big stoner (could still be for all the clarity and smoke coming out of the WH).
vityas on January 6, 2013 at 10:24 AM
The problem with that logic is, especially regarding heroin, legalization would lead to such a drop in market price that, even with increased usage (a notion that is debatable regarding heroin), the aggregate amount of money spent on legal heroin would be far less than the aggregate amount now spent on heroin. Less cost necessarily means less property crime to feed habits.
JohnGalt23 on January 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM
Have we lost the war on murder?
Knott Buyinit on January 6, 2013 at 10:26 AM
Really? We can’t keep drugs out of our prisons. And your solution is to stop 100% of them along two 2000+ mile borders, not to mention thousands of miles of coastline?
Something tells me you haven’t thought this all the way through…
JohnGalt23 on January 6, 2013 at 10:27 AM
Decriminalize use, but keep trafficking illegal? That’s a schizophrenic policy.
Cocaine, meth, and heroin are scourges on humanity, just like smallpox, malaria, and AIDS. Maybe we can do something about legalizing pot. But not the other stuff. If you legalize hard drugs, you might as well provide cocaine to your 18 year old daughter if she asks you for it. Then have a heart to heart with her about what’s involved with being a crack whore.
Paul-Cincy on January 6, 2013 at 10:28 AM
So, in your opinion, drug use and marketing are the moral and sociological equivalent of homicide.
Seriously?
JohnGalt23 on January 6, 2013 at 10:29 AM
Yes, yes, I’ve considered the lower costs associated with increased supply, but some addicts refuse to maintain a job and still need to pay for rent and electricity in addition to the costs of their habit.
John the Libertarian on January 6, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Full legalization along with support of companies who chose to be drug free. Let the drug users replace Mexicans as those who will do the jobs normal Americans “refuse” to do.
astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 10:33 AM
At the border? We’ve tried far more aggressive tactics than just border security.
We went directly into Latin and Central America (and we’re still there) overtly and covertly to cut the head off of the snake.
If you want to see just how much of a failure this effort was compare and contrast the Medellin cartel of the 80s with the Zetas.
CorporatePiggy on January 6, 2013 at 10:35 AM
John the Libertarian is no such thing? Surprise!
Then there is the JohnGalt that is not even remotely similar to the man in the books.
What is it about the name John?
astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 10:35 AM
True. But hard core junkies (who are responsible for the vast majority of drug-related property crime, if not a majority of all property crime) have a pretty meager lifestyle to support, outside of their habit. Legalize heroin, and I suspect for most junkies, the risk of even a short stay in stir (and the attending withdrawal) would make homelessness or menial labor preferable to regular criminal activity.
JohnGalt23 on January 6, 2013 at 10:39 AM
It’s just a handle I’ve been using since my first day on the ‘net. I admire the novel. However, I am not an engineer, nor am I an atheist.
JohnGalt23 on January 6, 2013 at 10:40 AM
No and Yes. Drug use, no. Drug marketing, yes. At least assuming you refer to street drugs. If I found someone marketing drugs to my grandchildren I would treat it the same way I would if I found that same person trying to murder my grandchildren. Your mileage may vary.
I don’t really give a rip what you want to smoke, inject or snort. I don’t give a rip if you die from it. Your life, your choice. But if you try to bring that choice into my life and my family you will likely die from something else.
MikeA on January 6, 2013 at 10:44 AM
I’m more for legalization than not. I’m speculating on the downside.
John the Libertarian on January 6, 2013 at 10:45 AM
perspective
ted c on January 6, 2013 at 10:46 AM
Maybe. But I tend to think legalizing this junk would have a more immediate benefit in that with easier access to lower cost dope, most of those same people would soon OD and kill themselves, reducing the entire problem. I can live with that.
MikeA on January 6, 2013 at 10:47 AM
And at some point, members of your family become adults, responsible for their own choices.
Or would you try to murder Jack Daniels executives for trying to market liquor to your grandchildren? Because they do. And they do so knowing a certain percentage of those people they try to hook when they are young are going to become dipsomaniacs, and likely die as a result.
Are Jack Daniels execs the moral and sociological equivalents of murderers?
JohnGalt23 on January 6, 2013 at 10:50 AM
No it isnt. There is no rap for using drugs. It would have to be a possession charge which is much more difficult than theft. And no DA or law enforcement angent is going to kick down someones door thats getting high
snoopicus on January 6, 2013 at 10:53 AM
In the short-term, that is probably true. Of course, given the nature of legal opiates, legal manufacturers would likely come up with delivery methods far superior, in all ways including safety, than what junkies have access to now.
JohnGalt23 on January 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM
I guess you missed the part where I qualified this to include “street drugs” That does not include Jack Daniels, drugs prescribed by a physician for a specific medical condition or any other thing you choose to make a similar point about. That said, if I caught a bootlegger trying to sell Jack Daniels to my grand kids in the same way drug dealers today do with weed, heroin, and meth, his life might be forfeit.
MikeA on January 6, 2013 at 10:57 AM
The war on drugs has had the exact consequences of the war on alcohol during prohibition. We’ve created the perfect conditions for drug cartels to thrive, we’ve driven up the price of drugs so criminal behavior is encouraged among drug users, and we have done nothing to actually stop drugs.
You cannot stop demand for anything, ever. So unless someone is directly harmed by the sale of that product its best if it remains legal. Legal manufacturers and distributors can be barred from marketing to children, they can be barred from pushing harder and harder drugs, and it is very unlikely they will be run by violent criminals.
Kronos on January 6, 2013 at 11:01 AM
Clinton did the same with welfare reform – sometimes your party has been doing the wrong thing for 40 years and you have to try and turn around. It’s the right thing to do.
ernesto on January 6, 2013 at 11:04 AM
This is probably 30% of the reason I do not like libertarians or the philosophy. In the end, they really are for using the power of government, just for things that affect themselves. Apparently you have been screwed by a family member stealing yours or your parents money in order to maintain their addiction. Since you have seen the problem, you are interested in having the government have power to stop it. On the other hand, if you did not personally suffer from this problem, any other person arguing in favor of prohibition would be enemy number one!
I have never found the limit on what would be legal under libertarian government and what would be illegal.
Supposedly it would be illegal for someone to play their music so loud in their home to disturb me in my home. But people like the Westburo Church could stand on a street screaming, using bullhorns even, in order to disturb a funeral. Identical activities, totally opposite results. Can my neighbor play their music that loud if they back it up by declaring it is a political statement?
astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 11:06 AM
The Colombians could have never taken down Pablo Escobar without American assistance.
Also,we are now arming cartels instead of fighting them in Mexico.
They operate with impunity.
Do you think that maybe a prison full of Mexican gang members may have something to do with that…?
Maybe it might be better if the drugs never got here in the first place?
NeoKong on January 6, 2013 at 11:08 AM
What exactly qualifies something as a “street drug”?
Is it made out of macadam? Is it a supporter of former Philly mayor John Street? Is it so common as to be able to be picked up off the street for free?
This is about one of the most disingenuous arguments I’ve come across on this topic. Congratulations. I’m not easily taken aback.
So, was whiskey a “street drug” during Prohibition? If you use opium in a den, does it cease to be a “street drug”?
And as far as you shooting Habib, the local 7-11 manager for selling your 17 year old grandkid a six pack, I’d delight, as a member of your jury, in putting you into the chair for that one.
JohnGalt23 on January 6, 2013 at 11:09 AM
And maybe it would be better if ice cream didn’t make me fat.
Much like keeping narcotics out of America, despite the tens of billions a year we spend on it, that’s a fantasy.
Conservative policies are supposed to eschew fantasy. Leave that for the liberals…
JohnGalt23 on January 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Wow. Deep. Name a group that is less for this than libertarians. Other than anarchists.
You’re absolutely right, every time I see a red light I run it because, wow, man, don’t tell me what to do.
John the Libertarian on January 6, 2013 at 11:16 AM
If you’re FOR the status quo on the war on drugs than you also support big profits for murderous drug cartels.
If you’re for decriminalization – then you are AGAINST big profits for murderous drug cartels.
It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
The ONE THING the cartels fear – is decriminalization.
HondaV65 on January 6, 2013 at 11:24 AM
Also – all anyone has to do to realize the futility of prohibitionist laws is to watch a couple of episodes of “Boardwalk Empire” on HBO.
HondaV65 on January 6, 2013 at 11:26 AM
You really need to take about 20 classes on reading comprehension.
My statement was that as a philosophy it says there should be absolute minimal government, but as individuals, you all have your own little pet laws you intend to keep. In your instance, because some drug abuser in your life screwed you or someone close to you over, you are still on the fence on whether or not people should have the freedom to chose what they consume.
I also followed up with an example of the expressed hypocrisy of libertarian argument. My neighbor cannot play music so loud it damages the use of my home, but under the same breath, the Westburo Church can use a bullhorn to disrupt a funeral. The difference, one claims it is political speech…
astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 11:29 AM
The War on Drugs is a failure. Same as Prohibition was. We should go back to the way things were before. The government used to make some revenue from the sale of narcotics. Google ‘Narcotic Tax Stamps’. Stamp collectors collect them.
I suspect we have a bigger problem with legalization, now. I think it has totally corrupted the government. God only knows how much our officials are making on the side from all of this.
trigon on January 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM
I’m amazed. You really think there is no difference between Whiskey and Opium? I think you are smart enough to know that street drugs in this context refers to those commonly sold by creepy people while watching out for the cops. Could be I’m wrong on that though.
As for Habib, first I said nothing about shooting him. I might just beat the crap out of him. On the other hand I might just make it a mission to ensure his children are provided equal opportunity by providing them some harmful things to ruin their lives.
You seem to be in a biotch mood today.
MikeA on January 6, 2013 at 12:08 PM
No you didn’t….LOL
CW on January 6, 2013 at 12:16 PM
People in glass houses should not throw stones …
First, I don’t any Libertarians who support even a single prohibitionist law. Now – some do favor a ban, or at least controls on abortion – but that’s about it. So I don’t know where you’re finding these “hypocritical” libertarians.
Second – how can you throw a single stone at libertarians when you, a CONSERVATIVE are in fact … hypocritical?
You talk about FREEDOM and smaller government – yet you have no problem in placing governmental control on who a woman has sex with vis a vis the prostitution laws. Do you find it’s the role of government to control what a woman does with her body with a consenting adult?
Second – you always want to keep GUNS FREE but you want to ban drugs.
You complain when the liberals enact laws like bans on SuperSized Sodas, or sugary treats … but you still insist on telling a gay guy he can’t marry another gay guy.
You’re just like liberals – most of you “conservatives”.
If you were really for LIBERTY – you’d be FOR the concept of self-ownership – you would not support prohibitionist laws.
Yet you do support them and that is why conservatism has a bad rap right now.
HondaV65 on January 6, 2013 at 12:29 PM
A lot of peripheral arguments.
How about comments on objective reality?
Have the use of drugs, over time, been shown to have had positive or negative effects on society?
Should a social order have the right to issue prohibitions on behaviors that have negative effects on the lives of the majority of people in the society?
Should any behavior between individuals or groups of people be allowed until society experiences negative effects?
If this approach is taken, how and what is the marker before action can be taken to reverse those behaviors or actions?
Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 12:44 PM
The Government has no business dealing with drugs (other than certifying its purity) than it does mandating the barrel length of my gun. The “War on Drugs” like the “War on Poverty” or the “War on Younameit” is constitutional overreach. Every Cop is corrupted by it, every department and it feeds 500,000 gang members which, if we were a sane Country, we would round up and deport to Countries of Origin. End it now.
Bulletchaser on January 6, 2013 at 12:49 PM
Bullshit.
You’re conflating several issues into your ideology.
Mimzey on January 6, 2013 at 12:53 PM
Maybe you missed that I was bantering with John the Libertarian who said he was leaning towards legalization, but felt that legalizing drugs would prevent him from putting people behind bars for other crimes they might perpetrate, particularly intrafamilial crimes.
I am sure I have a few places where I am hypocritical. Name a human being that does not… Then again, I do not see where I do one thing and then demand it be illegal for someone else.
I do not have a problem with prostitution. God does. That said, I never said it should be illegal. I might be willing to have some levels of safeguards placed on it, such as regular medical exams to ensure they are not spreading diseases while getting paid for it. hell, I might even not have a problem with diseased prostitutes just so long as they are required to show their johns (there is that name again) their list of diseases.
Nope, I am on the side of legal drugs, ALL OF THEM. I am then on the side of employers being able to discriminate against drug users, or, if they are stupid, non drug users. We need people to do menial jobs for little money…
Um, that is because the word Marriage has a specific meaning. I am not willing to allow disgusting human being to be given the power to change my language. They can make all the contracts they want with themselves, and when they prove the value of their version of monogamous relationships, society will reward them. On the other hand, what you want is for gays to be given respect and ceremony without earning it.
I agree, plenty of pathetic people wrap themselves in the term “conservative” when they are no such thing.
You really are an ignorant person when it comes to who I am.
I am all for liberty. But that “liberty” is no such thing when I am financially held liable for someone else’s actions.
Get rid of the government sponsored taxpayer supported safety nets and I could care less what someone else does.
astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 3:02 PM
Has the war on drugs prevented the usage? Has the war on drugs had an even more detrimental effect on society? Hint, I have to go through massive levels of bureaucracy just to get the V!codin I need to have a somewhat close to normal life, and the war on drugs was the slippery slope that led to that.
Yes, but the drug use itself does not have a direct impact on society unless it is performed in public. Convict on the actual crimes, not the pre-crimes. Owning a gun is a pre-crime activity that leads to murder. Thus you are falling right into the gun prohibitions argument here!
The problem is when government subsidizes their bad choices. We need to get out of the safety net business and let private citizens and private charity do that work, where they have much better results than the government.
astonerii on January 6, 2013 at 3:07 PM