The Great Debate
05:02 December 3rd, 2008

Einstein, insanity and the war on drugs

Tags: Darfur, General, , , ,

Bernd Debusmann - Great Debate- Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own -

Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. His definition fits America’s war on drugs, a multi-billion dollar, four-decade exercise in futility.

The war on drugs has helped turn the United States into the country with the world’s largest prison population. (Noteworthy statistic: The U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s population and around 25 percent of the world’s prisoners). Keen demand for illicit drugs in America, the world’s biggest market, helped spawn global criminal enterprises that use extreme violence in the pursuit of equally extreme profits.

Over the years, the war on drugs has spurred repeated calls from social scientists and economists (including three Nobel prize winners) to seriously rethink a strategy that ignores the laws of supply and demand.

Under the headline “The Failed War on Drugs,” Washington’s respected, middle-of-the-road Brookings Institution said in a November report that drug use had not declined significantly over the years and that “falling retail drug prices reflect the failure of efforts to reduce the supply of drugs.”

Cocaine production in South America stands at historic highs, the report noted.

Like other think tanks, Brookings stopped short of recommending a radical departure from past policies with a proven track record of failure such as spending billions on crop eradication in Latin America and Asia while allotting paltry sums in comparison to rehabilitating addicts.

Enter Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization started in 2002 by police officers, judges, narcotics agents, prison wardens and others with first-hand experience of implementing policies that echo the prohibition of alcohol. Prohibition, now widely regarded a dismal and costly failure of social engineering, came to an end 75 years ago this week.

As LEAP sees it, the best way to fight drug crime and violence is to legalize drugs and regulate them the same way alcohol and tobacco is now regulated. “We repealed prohibition once and we can do it again,” one of the group’s co-founders, Terry Nelson, told a Washington news conference on December 2. “We cannot arrest our way out of this problem.”

FROM AL CAPONE TO DRUG CARTELS

“In the 20s and 30s, we had Al Capone and his gangsters getting rich and shooting up our streets,” said Nelson, who spent a 32-year government career fighting drugs in the U.S. and Latin America. “Today we have criminal gangs, cartels, Taliban and al-Qaeda profiting from the prohibition of drug sales and wreaking havoc all over the world. The correlation is obvious.”

The before-and-after sequence is so obvious that the U.S. Congress passed a resolution in September noting that the 1933 repeal of alcohol prohibition had replaced a “dramatic increase” in organized crime with “a transparent and accountable system of distribution and sales” that generated billions of dollars in tax revenues and boosted the sick economy.

That’s where advocates of drug legalization want to go now, and some of them hope that the similarities between today’s deep economic crisis and the Great Depression will result in a more receptive audience for their pro-legalization arguments among lawmakers and government leaders.

The budgetary impact of legalizing drugs would be enormous, according to a study prepared to coincide with the 75th anniversary of prohibition’s end by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron. He estimates that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy — $44.1 billion through savings on law enforcement and at least $32.7 billion in tax revenues from regulated sales.

Miron published a similar study in 2005 looking only at the budgetary effect of legalizing marijuana, the most widely used illicit drug in the United States. That study was endorsed by more than 500 economists, including Nobel laureates Milton Friedman of Stanford University, George Akerlof of the University of California and Vernon Smith of George Mason University.

“We urge…the country to commence an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition,” the economists said in an open letter to President George W. Bush, congress, governors and state legislators. “At a minimum, this debate will force advocates of current policy to show that prohibition has benefits sufficient to justify the cost to taxpayers, foregone tax revenues and numerous ancillary consequences that result from marijuana prohibition.”

The advocates of current policy, led by outgoing President George W. Bush’s drug czar, John Walters, never took up the challenge to discuss cost-benefit equations. His Office of National Drug Control Policy has focused, with the single-minded determination of a moral crusader, on doing the same thing over and over again.

But the United States is not alone in pursuing drug strategies that are based more on wishful thinking than on sober analysis. If you put faith in declarations by the United Nations, a “drug-free world” is an attainable goal and the war on drugs all but over.

In 1998, a special session of the U.N. General Assembly forecast that the illicit cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy would be eliminated or significantly reduced by the year 2008, a deadline that also applied to “significant and measurable results in the field of demand reduction.”

The clock is ticking towards midnight, December 31, 2008.

— You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters.com. For more columns by Bernd Debusmann, click here. —

Want to debate? Send in your written submissions to debate@thomsonreuters.com.

Best Comment

December 10th, 2008
2:30 pm EST
Why should pot be illegal? Because the only companies poised to grow, package and sell it are the tobacco companies. Look at how they bastardized tobacco by adding so many additives and chemicals that American cigarettes have been banned in many countries. If Marlboro is allowed to sell joints we will end up with marijuana that is addictive and cancerous. I'll take mine home-grown, thank you.
-Posted by Robb

344 comments so far

December 9th, 2008 12:21 am GMT - Posted by stevelo

How can people - like Warwick an others here - argue that legalizing addictive/harmful substances is somehow a moral failure when the two biggest killers BY FAR (alcohol and tobacco) are legal? Why not criminalize those substances? Oh, right…we know it doesn’t work. You can’t legislate a market away - it was true during Prohibition, and its true now. Drugs of all kinds are here to stay.

December 8th, 2008 9:38 pm GMT - Posted by Hospitals & Asylums

Thank you for your thoughtful article on “Einstein, Insanity and War on Drugs” it is always nice to read that someone is trying to reverse the inequality begun with the foundation of the passage of the Controlled
Substances Act and foundation of the DEA. One can clearly see that there is widespread social opposition to unbridled drug use. In the Netherlands, where cannabis is legal to grow and buy in small quantities, use of the drug is reported to be lower than in the United States, because of social exclusion and disdain people have for drug consumption. In my personal experience as a writer, who just recently
learned about Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), I have found that the often violent opposition to reason in regard to drug laws is not quashed until one has reconstituted the drug regulation system as a pharmaceutical health profession.

For peace of mind what needs to be done is transfer the DEA to the DHHS, near the FDA and the International Narcotic Control Board (INCB) from under the supervision of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime to the World Health Organization and cut responsibility for drugs from the UN
Office of Crime. Essentially drugs are and always will be a medical issue. Pharmacy is a health profession devoted to the sale of high quality, affordable drugs, that make people healthy and happy. Pharmacists are there to counsel people, and their physicians, regarding
the danger of adverse drug reactions. One should note that pharmacies are nearly always filled with booze, cigarettes and junk food because they are intrepid salesmen of perishable goods with a long shelf life.
Pharmaceutical drugs (100,000 in hospitals) take 10 times more lives than illicit drugs (3,000-30,000) and substances of abuse manufactured in animal research, university and government laboratories take even
more (1 million) annually, in the US alone.

Nixon really made a mess of things. He seems to have substituted illicit drugs for gold in the standard weights used in the biased scales of justice and irreparably damaged both the justice and health systems,
as well as began, what is now, crippling income inequality and international trade deficits in the US and to a lesser degree in the entire developed world. The central reason for this seems to be that although the Attorney General licenses all drug distributors, including your personal extortionist doctor, he knows absolutely nothing about medicine or pharmacy and tends to act in the corrupt interests of corporations and professionals, rather than the consumers. To make
matters worse in the deep shade of psychiatry, that in 1970 had just invented ways to torture the alleged mentally ill with anti-psychotic drugs, it is the Probate Judge, who also adjudicates wills, enforcing
the consumption of medication, as no self respecting drug “pusher” would do on the streets, it is he who is the Drug Enforcement Agent (DEA), and to strike fear in your heart might also enforce other substances of abuse to hasten the administration of wills. Afghanistan and Columbia, the world’s largest cultivators of opium and coca, were quickly subverted and remain dependent upon foreign military assistance to fight civil wars against the political establishment of National Opium/Coca
Agencies under Arts. 23 adn 24 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

I believe these are all the major issues, besides legalizing the cultivation and sale of small amounts of marijuana, and praising drug treatment for drug addiction, also a health/social work profession, because drugs, like alcohol and tobacco are not considered virtues, they are vices, but more tolerable than the medical dictatorship, in one’s own family, most consumers are fleeing, To learn more read,

Sanders, Tony J. Drug Administration. Hospitals & Asylums. Chapter 8.
http://www.title24uscode.org/DAY.htm
Sanders, Tony J. State Mental Institution Library Education. Hospitals & Asylums. Chapter 4
http://www.title24uscode.org/SMILE.htm

December 8th, 2008 9:05 pm GMT - Posted by Antônio

That’s an interesting point of view. If you legalize the consumption of drugs, like marijuana, just to combat the black market, drug dealers or who sells drugs, must register their business to survive, uh?
So, they start selling drugs legally, but as happen to alcohol and tobacco, society will start a campaign to stop its consumption, because is dangerous.
So, who is crazy enough to legalize a product that will be considered bad to other’s health?
Ah, ok, it creates dependence, taxes… I understood now.

December 8th, 2008 8:49 pm GMT - Posted by Daemon

If the ACLU and Norml want my money, they should just sue the boards of education for abject failure to live up to their mission statements - which all teachers and students are hardily ascribed to. My son’s high school is a mix of drugstore, liquor store and bordello. The cops patrol the halls, but don’t do anything to keep drugs etc out of the classroom. Guaranteed, though - there are over a hundred illegal drug items on campus for every item of liquor-store origin.
Put it in the ABC store, hombre. Does away with the criminal element, frees cops to hunt for real bad guys, and helps get rid of the deficit. People are going to get what they want - and its high time that the law of the land began reflecting reality.

December 8th, 2008 8:42 pm GMT - Posted by F.A. Hutchison, China

I’ve been smoking marijuana since I was 28-years old. It’s only helped. The ‘war’ should be against stupidity, which seems to reign in all high places!

December 8th, 2008 7:59 pm GMT - Posted by tito lyn

youre not gonna see legalization any time soon, neither bigger sentences against offenders. think about it, when taliban were ruling, afghanistan produced 10 to 15% of the world heroin, now its up to 90%. kosovo was promote a country by western country and they are rule by druglords. my point is we are rule by importers and our army airplanes are probably use to bring the stock in.

December 8th, 2008 7:51 pm GMT - Posted by Morrison

Heil RUFUS!
Your suggestions are just wonderful. Such much love for the individual. It would be interesting to see your reaction if some close relative of yours would be expelled from the country or executed as you just suggested. You want to introduce fascism, and probably at the same time proudly and chest-poundingly proclaim to be living in the world’s greatest democracy. Hooray, let’s drink to that!

December 8th, 2008 7:50 pm GMT - Posted by shylove

The Reagan era of JUST SAY NO was simplistic then and still is now except that it has done so much damage compared to spending all that money on treatment or something. Do you notice when a rich kid or star has a problem they get treatment, they don’t get sent to jail. So why do the elite want to send your kids all to jail, fear I suppose but, when they get out of jail it will be safer??? The real question is why did anyone go for the beat them into submission approach. Maybe they were dreaming of beating up the Hippie’s or something but it was our kids.

December 8th, 2008 7:04 pm GMT - Posted by Jim Ryan

Anyone who has been involved in political fundraising knows that companies like CCA (Corrections Corporation of America) are the first in line with checks to “law and order” candidates running for office. It’s the money, stupid. The “prison industrial complex” is real, filling prisons with minority kids doing minimum mandatory sentences for first time, non-violent offenses - many times proving only dry conspiracies, where no drugs are produced as evidence at trial. And when these former children get out, they are branded as “felons,” never able to vote, restricted from professional licenses, kept on the outside of legitimate society. What a shame. Shame on us, the taxpayers, for allowing lobbyists to push Congress to build the biggest people-warehousing operation in the world.

December 8th, 2008 6:48 pm GMT - Posted by MGarvey

Great article!! You cannot legislate morality. period.
The so-called drug war purpose has never been to reduce crime, one of its purposes is to create an ever growing avenue for lobbyists to funnel our tax dollars into under the guise of protecting us from the “sourge” of drugs but what has happened is that drugs are more available now than when this “war” was started. The real questions that need to be asked is who is really profiting from this war? Who is really benefiting? Who is really being targeted for arrest and imprisonment?

I don’t get how so many people see this as a black and white issue where the sky will fall is drugs are legalized. What this country needs is regulation. I’m specifically for the legalization of marijuana. The taxes and industry this single act would do would bring much needed tax dollars to the country right now….

December 8th, 2008 6:36 pm GMT - Posted by RUFUS

Greg’s is the only rational comment posted, and he has it totally pegged.

Instead of filling up prisons, simple way is to make the selling of illegal drugs a mandatory death sentence. Instead of filling prisons, put a real deterent in place. And include loss of citizenship to anyone that was naturalized, and expulsion from the US, and siezure of all assets by the US government. Stop playing at it. Also, put military with weapons loaded and with mandate to interdict drug smuggling across any border. And give all such guards immunity from ANY prosecution or civil liability in the event of a mistake. Stop being a nanny state and protecting the sellers. Put a mandatory drug rehab sentence on anyone caught using, and force anyone that is high visibility such as sports figures, actors and film makers, etc. that are caught with drugs to leave their professions and take registration like a sex offender, with penalty of life imprisonment if they are caught around drugs after being caught the first time.

December 8th, 2008 6:16 pm GMT - Posted by Warwick

“Law is NOT morality.” - Kevin

Yes it is. Isn’t most law historically derived from religious scriptures which depict the divide between right/wrong, moral/immoral, legal/illegal?

I can’t see how legalising addictive substances that have negative externalities attached to them could benefit any society. The costs of health care alone would strip away any financial benefits from tax etc. that could be gained by legalisation.

But rather than just continue the same things over and over, why can’t the government experiment with the implementation of better rehabilitation and social education programs before going down the road of legalisation?

December 8th, 2008 5:49 pm GMT - Posted by Dom Pfefferkorn

Does anyone know what the most smuggled-in product is in the United States? Cigarettes! What’s another? Caviar! And they are legal! Making something legal does not make the problem go away or even get better.

December 8th, 2008 5:30 pm GMT - Posted by Roger Barthe

To get rid of a problem like drugs by making it legal only creates other problems. Health issues would explode and the cost of dealing with people abusing their bodies would be onerous.

December 8th, 2008 5:24 pm GMT - Posted by John Stone

Speculating rarely ever comes close to the reality of a real world trial concerning complex issues. Emotionally charged discourse concerning the legalization of drugs does nothing to prove the case either way.

Stop speculating. Legalize a drug (marijuana) for a period of 3-5 years and record what happens. Marijuana is the perfect drug for a trial because it is most plentiful and there is already an infrastructure already operating in the few states that allow the use for medical reasons. Once the trail is over and the data analyzed then and only then can intelligent decisions be made concerning its removal from the list of controlled substances on a federal level.

December 8th, 2008 5:24 pm GMT - Posted by Ben Bendetti

Great article. Certainly stirred debate. Now if we can just start a rational discussion among our political, religious, press and law enforcement communities, who knows but that we might actually agree to try something different. Lord knows, what we’re doing now is the equivalent of the “finger-in-the-dike” solution.

December 8th, 2008 4:57 pm GMT - Posted by Jimbo

Greg;

You fail to realize people are already using. The fact that it’s illegal only makes criminals out of normally law abiding citizens. I don’t really care what happens. Just don’t look past the fact people are going to keep using regardless. Legal or not legal, the addictions you talk about are already there; probably people you know and trust. The problem is, making “drugs” [what really constitutes a drug anyway?] illegal only keeps things below the surface, just to keep it “PC”. I really have to laugh at how misguided you are. Obviously you just like to assume the things you see are real, and never really look beyond the surface. It’s a shame so many politicians share your narrow short sighted view of humanity. Government isn’t supposed to run your life. So why are they telling us what is legal and not legal. Obviously murder is one thing, but trying to legislate what people do in their own time in their own home is absolutely absured. I will tell you I support this idea. You mentioned the fact the dealers and such will just get deeper into crime. They could get a business license, and become legal dealers….. or would that make them doctors? Yeah I hope you got that. Doctors are probably the biggest criminals in our society. They are drugging people up left and right; but obviously Greg, you dont have a problem with that. I for one would rather have people doing drugs that are naturally grown than some designer drug created in a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical lab. Open your mind Greg. It’s extremely narrow as of now. Maybe you should try using and expand your mind, and also your view on life.

December 8th, 2008 4:56 pm GMT - Posted by Drew

I think the people still arguing for prohibition are the people who either make money off it or are too ignorant to understand that prohibition makes the problem worse. Look at what happens when drugs or alcohol are made illegal: Beer and wine were replaced by bathtub gin and dangerous moonshine during alcohol prohibition, amphetamine pep pills are replaced by crystal meth, cocaine becomes crack, and opium is replaced by heroin. Prohibition not only causes crime and corruption but it even makes the substances themselves more dangerous. Drugs are never going to go away, neither are the users. All that can be done is to reduce the danger and harm that will inevitably result from drugs.

December 8th, 2008 4:47 pm GMT - Posted by marc

“He estimates that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy”

That is savings/income for federal government. Although the line has blurred significantly in last few months, it is still not the US economy.

What would the savings be, if non-violent drug offenders were pardon and released? I seen numbers that this prison demographic is about 400,000.

You also do not mention, the militarization of the police, the erosion of civil liberties, the 1000s of collateral deaths and the penalties a person convicted of non-violent drug offense faces after prison (school loans, housing, etc.).

The penalties a poor black youth will face for getting caught with a joint, will ruin his life. All this in the name of saving him. Pretty screwed up.

December 8th, 2008 4:40 pm GMT - Posted by Keith

People, stop worrying about how to extract the tax money from the current growers and dealers. Once legalized, that system won’t last more than a few years.

When was the last time a stranger stopped you on the street trying to sell you bathtub gin? Never, because bootleggers can’t compete with the big corporations.

If pot’s legalized, within 2 years it’ll be available in liquor stores (or some other restricted retail) for a fraction of the current price. Overall consumption won’t rise significantly at all, though I expect there’ll be some shift from alcohol to pot, since it’s much less damaging.

Post Your Comment

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

House Rules:
  • We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential
  • We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous.information.