40 years ago last Friday, President Nixon declared "drug abuse" to be "America's public enemy number one" and yet, almost half-a-century later, it is difficult to escape the fact that the war on drugs has become another government boondoggle in need of an a complete overhaul.  While drug policy reform may seem a traditionally liberal sentiment, as early as 1990, National Review was engaging in the reform debate.  Then, in 1996, William F. Buckley Jr. himself came out in support of a total change in the system, noting "the cost of the drug war is many times more painful, in all its manifestations, than would be the licensing of drugs…"

Mr. Buckley spoke the truth in 1996 as even now, some 15 years later, the drug war's cost is higher than ever, and its painful manifestations remain numerous.  Annually, Nixon's "all-out offensive" costs taxpayers over $40 billion.  Most of this is spent on law enforcement in efforts manifest—not as programs that looks out for the health and well-being of citizens—but as a growingly oppressive and draconian police state.  From Plan Columbia to the Afghan poppy fields, America continues to push its particular brand of drug policy abroad, further eroding already unstable US foreign relations.  In spite of the fact that most illicit drug users are white, racial minorities are still being disproportionally targeted by the judicial system and, despite new legislation last year, the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity still exists.  The government has invested millions in DARE, a program that even the Surgeon General admits is ineffective.  Countries with prosecutorial approaches to drug policy, such as the US, have higher HIV/AIDS rates among drug users than their reformed counterparts, further driving up already staggering healthcare costs.

In light of these and other problems with the current system, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a brief report at the beginning of the month that bluntly shares this conclusion of inefficiency, stating: "The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world."

The Commission, a diverse, high-profile group including politicians, authors, and entrepreneurs, recommends substance decriminalization, the creation of treatment and harm-reduction programs for users, education-backed prevention programs, open debate about drug issues, and the framing of drug use as a public health problem instead of a criminal justice issue.  While all of these may not be reconcilable with small-government approaches conservatives support, they represent a step in the right direction by opening a fresh debate on an issue that is still being dealt with in an archaic fashion.

Indeed, these, as well as their other recommendations are radically different from the current US approach.  However, what may be most surprising about the report is the wide array of people—of all backgrounds, professions and political ideologies—sharing in the Commission's call for reform of drug policy.  From both ends of the spectrum, mainstream media has been supportive of the Commission and its attempts to reopen the drug policy debate.  In the past week, both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have published pieces in defense of the report.

It is almost unnecessary to point out the fact that publications such as these, with staunchly different ideologies, rarely agree on an issue, let alone one that has become as culturally and politically taboo as drug policy reform.  However, this cross-party reconciliation is no new phenomenon as ideologues from left and right have long agreed on the need for sweeping changes to the current system.

In addition to the previously cited pieces, The Wall Street Journal recently published another article drawing parallels between the failure of alcohol prohibition and the current war on drugs, while the Seattle Times has supported outright legalization of cannabis.  It's not just Seattle that holds this opinion; Milton Friedman endorsed cannabis legalization and Ron Paul recently advocated for the legalization of all drugs.  Unsurprisingly, Ethan Nadelmann, head of the Drug Policy Alliance, is in favor of reform, but it is intrigung that the federal judge, Robert Sweet, and numerous others from legal professions have advocated for drug regulation via the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP).

And so it seems that in relation to drug policy, both conservatives and liberals can agree that something has to change.  While a variety of opinions exist about the specific forms these changes should take—decriminalization, harm-reduction, legalization, regulation, etc.—everyone outside of Washington recognizes that America has a drug problem and is addicted to overspending on programs that simply don't produce results.  However, as they have consistently done in the past, those on Capital Hill are likely to continue maintaining the status quo in relation to drug policy.  Any other approach results in politicians being branded as "soft on crime" by their rivals.

Like previous recommendations made by RAND and the CATO Institute, officials have already begun scrambling to undermine and ignore the Commission's publication.  As the BBC reports, an official from the Office of National Drug Control Policy has argued, "making drugs more available—as this report suggests—will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe."  While decriminalization and pubic-health approaches may seem prima facie ineffective in curtailing drug problems, we have 40 years of proof that our current approaches don't work, and many outside the game of politics agree that a change is long overdue.

It is now time for the government to begin acknowledging the costly inefficiency of the modern war on drugs.  However, much like the addict, politicians are having trouble admitting that they have a problem.  As long as "tough on drugs" approaches remain valuable political capital, the only measurable outcome will be to get America further hooked on a corrosive system that overspends and overreaches while it underachieves.

 

A Message from the Editors

Your donation sustains our efforts to inspire joyous rediscoveries.