The Future of Drug Prohibition

An Update

Tobacco, marijuana, opium, coca, and alcohol have a long history of popularity and persecution. The tendency is for people in the lower class to find solace in these substances to relieve the pain and monotony in their lives. At the same time, the authorities, who enjoy wealth and privilege, try (unsuccessfully) to stamp them out. Prohibition against substances that bring happiness (however brief) never has and never will succeed in a country that is governed by the people.

The repeated efforts to impose zero tolerance always end in a policy of tolerance and treatment because human beings are genetically designed to seek pleasure and avoid pain. The current drug war is a carbon copy of every historic battle ever fought over which drug should be used and which drug should be forbidden. The morning cup of coffee has often been a target for persecution although the fight may have been more about who was making a profit than over concern for public health.

The economic collapse of the U.S. economy in 1929 helped bring about the repeal of alcohol prohibition in 1933 when Presidential candidate, Franklin Roosevelt, understood that the misery of the Depression and the rising cost of fighting corruption and violence was too great a burden to impose on the American people. In the same way, our 2009 economic crisis has triggered a debate over the legalization of cannabis – a debate no politician seeking re-election would have dared to suggest twenty five years ago.

The sudden interest in a change in U.S. drug policy is fueled by the efforts of pro-legalization groups like LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) that want drug violence to end and a new policy of treatment to begin.

The Internet has given Americans long overdue access to the pro-legalization argument instead of the non-stop drone of seventy five years of anti-drug messages. For the first time, soft drugs like marijuana are no longer the devil’s weed but a treatment for a variety of health problems. Most Americans are not aware that cannabis was listed in the U.S. Pharmacopeia as an approved medicine until 1943 when pressure from federal bureaucrats forced the AMA to remove it. Important information about the damaging side effects of drugs made in a drug company lab can now be compared with the benign nature of pure, vaporized cannabis. The long term damage to the body from chronic marijuana use is far preferable to the liver and brain damage caused by chronic alcoholism.

Many Americans who support the noble idea of a drug-free society do not realize how costly it is to build and maintain a huge prison system. The network of surveillance, drug testing, arresting and processing suspects, all feed into our overburdened state and federal courts. From there, an arrested family member may be sent to prison, forced into a drug treatment program, put on probation, or told to pay a fine. If this policy had merit, it would have created a safer, healthier society instead of a criminal population of disenfranchised ex-cons seeking help from charitable organizations.

So far, Federal lawmakers have borrowed eleven trillion dollars and California lawmakers have borrowed twenty four billion dollars just to keep going. The drug war costs tax payers 69 billion dollars each year. What’s wrong with this picture?

If winning the war is more important than balancing budgets or abiding by the Constitution then why not pass nationwide, random, mandatory, drug testing, and force the taxpayer to foot the bill? We could send those who failed the impeccable drug test to private prisons where they can work menial jobs at low wages and receive free drug education. What’s wrong with that?

Drug warriors fear that drug re-legalization means “anything goes.” Why would anyone think that?

Before 1914, all drugs in America were legal, regulated and taxed. Somehow, most, but not all Americans managed to live ordinary lives in the presence of patent medicines which contained opium, morphine, and cannabis tinctures and extracts.

To anti-prohibitionists, drug legalization means “control” and “taxation” as opposed to no control and no taxation. It means ID cards and “adults only” purchasing small amounts of soft drugs in a licensed facility. It also means “addiction recovery clinics” for those who need help with hard drugs - the kind of clinics we had before 1920 when zero tolerance lawmakers forced them all to shut down.

Drug warriors argue that the cost of treating drug addicts would cancel out all the benefits gained from re-legalization. If we stopped the arrests then drug use would explode and exacerbate the problem.

What is missing here is trust in people to manage their own lives instead of hiring SWAT teams to break into people’s homes. If drug users injure or kill themselves with full knowledge of the risks, should everyone in the country be punished? This is what we have now and it’s called Prohibition.

If a popular referendum denies politicians additional tax money to throw away on a failed drug policy then that sends a clear message. After that, it is up to the state lawmakers and not the federal government to make changes that will reduce the violence, corruption and financial burden of a war we cannot win.

James Wiley

San Anselmo, CA

415-453-8715

May 2009