Reality Intrudes on the Drug War

realclearpolitics.com ^ | February 15, 2009 | Steve Chapman

[neverdem]

In the story of the emperor with no clothes, it took someone whose observations are rarely heeded -- a child -- to point out the obvious fact that no one else could acknowledge. In the case of drug policy, it takes people who are usually ignored by Washington policymakers -- Latin Americans -- to perform the same invaluable service.

Last week, a commission made up of 17 members, from Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa to Sonia Picado, the Costa Rican who heads the Inter-American Institute on Human Rights, did nothing but admit the truth: The war on drugs is a failure.

"Prohibitionist policies based on the eradication of production and on the disruption of drug flows as well as on the criminalization of consumption have not yielded the expected results," the panel said in a report (http://drugsanddemocracy.org/files/2009/02/declaracao_ingles_site.pdf). "We are farther than ever from the announced goal of eradicating drugs."

The panel was co-chaired by three former heads of state -- Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, all of whom were once leaders in the crusade. In 1996, Zedillo won attention for escalating the crackdown. But they have learned from experience that the old strategy doesn't work...

--snip--

"The enormous capacity of the narcotics trade for violence and corruption can only be effectively countered if its sources of income are substantially weakened," it argues. Unsaid is that the only way to drastically reduce the profitability of drug production and trafficking is to make them legal -- as we did with liquor after Prohibition.

Most people, here or in Latin America, may not be ready for that remedy. But facing the truth about the drug war is a step toward salvation. If you want to change reality, it helps to abandon your fantasies.

[grey_whiskers]

I were to legalize and regulate the production and sales of marijuana similar to the way we regulate alcohol we would deprive these cartels of most of their income and make them much smaller and much less of a threat.

And in 20 years, the liberal ambulance-chasing lawyers will be droning on and on about the evils of "Big Pot" the way they now do about "Big Tobacco."

I'll get the popcorn.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Will we see a "Starbongs" on every corner?

Will Michael Phelps finally have an endorsement contract he can count on?

Cheers!

[Stonewall Jackson]

This would likely reduce the amount of crime occurring in America's cities as well. Modern drug gangs are shooting up our cities just like Capone and his like did back in the 1920’s. If you take away the gangs’ main source of money, pretty soon they will be unable to finance their endless conflicts and will like fade into obscurity.

[Ken H]

And in 20 years, the liberal ambulance-chasing lawyers will be droning on and on about the evils of "Big Pot" the way they now do about "Big Tobacco."

It would still beat the way it's regulated now. Money from Big Pot would not be fueling the cartels as it is today.