It seems as though Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have decided to open another front in the Obama administration’s backdoor war on outdated, inappropriate, and absurdly expensive policies: Holder declared that federal agents will no longer raid marijuana clubs in states that have passed legislation legalizing medical use of marijuana. [On an embarrassing note: without “The first black […]” leading his name I almost feel as if Holder’s title is missing something.]
Chalk one up for states’ rights. While this is far from legalization of marijuana federally it represents a significant deviation from past policies, and I can only hope that this indicates a shift in focus in the War on Drugs. As the above chart from 538 illustrates, public opinion is slowly moving in favor of the legalization of marijuana (both from the support and opposition sides), a trend I interpret (while hindered in no way by data or fact) to mean that the public as a whole is gradually coming to understand the differences between marijuana, which can lead to mental addictions, and more serious drugs that form both mental and physical addictions and lead to very serious health and general welfare problems (read: crime). As Nate Silver points out, though, it seems likely that, “[…] we'll see other some other once-unthinkable things like legalized gay marriage [before we see legalized marijuana].”
I guess my main point is that the War on Drugs needs to be refocused in two major ways. First of all, the government should exert different efforts for the control of different drugs, with the distribution of funding and resources determined by an honest assessment of the impact of each drug on individuals and the country as a whole. Stated another way, marijuana related arrests should not account for nearly half of all drug arrests (see table below) in a country in which 97 million people have ‘admitted’ to having tried pot.
Source.
The other major change I support is less likely to be implemented, but who knows what this crazy Obama administration will do next? That change is a shift from a supply-side focus to a demand-side focus. Let’s try a mental experiment: imagine if the DEA made a bust in which it confiscated 80% of the heroin in the USA overnight. The next day, as junkies head to the corners, what will happen? Will the ‘drought’ lead users to rehabilitate, to realize the dangers of being a drug addict, to avoid crime and seek out Christ? Or will price go through the roof, likely leading to more drug-related crime as users attempt to scrounge up the necessary cash to buy some of the tiny supply? I think the latter is significantly more likely.
It is certainly easier to publicly justify supply-side programs to limit drug use: the publicity of drug busts; the visibility of border patrol agents; the high recidivism rates of addiction treatment programs; etc. Simply because a course of action is easier and less controversial, though, does not mean it is the best choice. I believe that if the United States wants to seriously attempt to combat the use of dangerous drugs it needs to rethink its classification system and the mechanisms by which it combats drug purchases.
There are a number of potential problems here, I admit. First, assuming demand for a drug falls, prices will fall. When prices fall the suppliers have less incentive to be there (less profit per unit sold), but the users have a greater incentive to use (more units of drug per dollar spent). I think these effects would interact differently based on the drug in question and the level of addiction it creates. Second, drug treatment programs are expensive. I would argue that some of this cost would be offset by the lowered costs associated with the reclassification of some drugs (e.g. if marijuana were not a drug for which one could be jailed, the country would no longer have to pay to jail those arrested with marijuana, or may not even have to arrest those people at all). Again, the net effect is ambiguous in this hypothetical world I have imagined. Lastly, and I am sure I am missing arguments for both sides, opponents of these reforms may argue that by enforcing treatment programs rather than jail time the country is choosing to give criminals a second chance at the expense of those who may have never committed a crime. I imagine an opponent thinking, “Why is that criminal allowed to walk near my child? Why do I pay for his wrong decisions with my fear over my own property and safety?” I have no rebuttal for this except for my own belief that even the best of men can fall prey to addiction and that each and every person who does deserves at least a second chance, if not more.
I hope to one day live in a country in which one mistake on the order of taking a drug does not ruin one’s life permanently. If he feels compelled to continue sneaking legislation through based on false pretenses, let’s hope Obama chooses some of the right legislation to sneak through. I apologize for the length of this ramble. I hope it received at least one drug-addled, "Hooray!" from the crowd.
