The issue of drug legalization has become a hot topic as of late. Jim Webb is calling for a commission to study issues related to prison reform and is recommending that all ideas be considered, including legalization of drugs.
The extra press even brought an article from John P. Walters, former Drug Czar, in the Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124061336043754551.html
In this article Walters, rolls out what he considers to be the great successes of the Drug War. Those successes, the waning of the crack and meth "epidemics."
Walters fails to realize that the reduction in use of crack and meth can not be fully attributed to the drug policy but rather are due to changing preferences within the market. The fact is that the crack "epidemic" was replaced by the meth "epidemic" which has now been replaced by a prescription drug (mainly oxycontin) "epidemic."
Drug policy does have some effect on these changing preferences. If the government focuses interdiction efforts on cocaine then it has less resources to stop meth. These interdiction efforts will impact cost. That is, the cost of cocaine would increase while the cost of meth would decrease. Any reputable student of economics will tell you that cost is going to affect use.
So the great successes of the drug war are nothing more than a thumb in the dike, slowing the spill from one crack and diverting pressure to create a new fissure.
Further, Walters fails to acknowledge that most of the legalization talk still surrounds marijuana. I am sure he would say that is just the beginning for the legalization efforts. There is some truth to that. I, for one, support legalization or at least decriminalization of all drugs. However, my experience in advocacy of legalization has led me to believe that legalization of marijuana would silence the majority of drug war critics.
Unfortunately, most people only really care about legalizing their own drug of choice. I support legalization of marijuana alone, primarily because it would likely shift usage patterns more to this very benign drug at the deficit of more dangerous drugs. It might harm my libertarian ideals of full legalization, but I am more than willing to sacrifice that for the benefit that it will bring to my fellow Americans.
Another point Walters makes is against the idea that prohibition spawns and strengthens black market cartels, organized crime or the mafia. This is in response to the argument from proponents of legalization that alcohol prohibition created/strengthened organized crime. Walters points out that Bobby Kennedy was battling mafia long after the end of alcohol prohibition. No doubt, the mafia survived past the end of alcohol prohibition. It did so by shifting resources into other areas, gambling (legal or otherwise), newly prohibited drugs, prostitution and other black market activities that should be legal. Some of the shifting (e.g, into legalized gambling) actually legitimized the resources so new generations were less likely to engage in illegal activities.
The mafia has not gone away but it has not been nearly the same since and the end of prohibition made it a much easier target for police.
Walters is probably right that the Mexican cartels will not simply disappear with legalization. Many will move into some new territory of illegal activity. But they will be greatly weakened and that should be enough alone.
P.S. Walters madness should be understood. Don't demonize him. Personally, I see him as an old man that sees his life's work under attack. Even that might be too simplistic. Maybe, he actually believes the nonsense he spews.
I meant to start this as a criticism of arguments for and against legalization. There are many arguments for legalization that are total bs or at least very weak and nearly all the arguments for the status quo are weak. Then I found Walters article. Maybe, I will revisit the subject.
The extra press even brought an article from John P. Walters, former Drug Czar, in the Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124061336043754551.html
In this article Walters, rolls out what he considers to be the great successes of the Drug War. Those successes, the waning of the crack and meth "epidemics."
Walters fails to realize that the reduction in use of crack and meth can not be fully attributed to the drug policy but rather are due to changing preferences within the market. The fact is that the crack "epidemic" was replaced by the meth "epidemic" which has now been replaced by a prescription drug (mainly oxycontin) "epidemic."
Drug policy does have some effect on these changing preferences. If the government focuses interdiction efforts on cocaine then it has less resources to stop meth. These interdiction efforts will impact cost. That is, the cost of cocaine would increase while the cost of meth would decrease. Any reputable student of economics will tell you that cost is going to affect use.
So the great successes of the drug war are nothing more than a thumb in the dike, slowing the spill from one crack and diverting pressure to create a new fissure.
Further, Walters fails to acknowledge that most of the legalization talk still surrounds marijuana. I am sure he would say that is just the beginning for the legalization efforts. There is some truth to that. I, for one, support legalization or at least decriminalization of all drugs. However, my experience in advocacy of legalization has led me to believe that legalization of marijuana would silence the majority of drug war critics.
Unfortunately, most people only really care about legalizing their own drug of choice. I support legalization of marijuana alone, primarily because it would likely shift usage patterns more to this very benign drug at the deficit of more dangerous drugs. It might harm my libertarian ideals of full legalization, but I am more than willing to sacrifice that for the benefit that it will bring to my fellow Americans.
Another point Walters makes is against the idea that prohibition spawns and strengthens black market cartels, organized crime or the mafia. This is in response to the argument from proponents of legalization that alcohol prohibition created/strengthened organized crime. Walters points out that Bobby Kennedy was battling mafia long after the end of alcohol prohibition. No doubt, the mafia survived past the end of alcohol prohibition. It did so by shifting resources into other areas, gambling (legal or otherwise), newly prohibited drugs, prostitution and other black market activities that should be legal. Some of the shifting (e.g, into legalized gambling) actually legitimized the resources so new generations were less likely to engage in illegal activities.
The mafia has not gone away but it has not been nearly the same since and the end of prohibition made it a much easier target for police.
Walters is probably right that the Mexican cartels will not simply disappear with legalization. Many will move into some new territory of illegal activity. But they will be greatly weakened and that should be enough alone.
P.S. Walters madness should be understood. Don't demonize him. Personally, I see him as an old man that sees his life's work under attack. Even that might be too simplistic. Maybe, he actually believes the nonsense he spews.
I meant to start this as a criticism of arguments for and against legalization. There are many arguments for legalization that are total bs or at least very weak and nearly all the arguments for the status quo are weak. Then I found Walters article. Maybe, I will revisit the subject.
