Pubdate: Sat, 18 Apr 2009
Source: Calgary Herald (CN AB)
Copyright: 2009 Canwest Publishing Inc.
Contact: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/letters.html
Website: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/66
Author: Dan Gardner
Note: Dan Gardner is an Ottawa Citizen columnist.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

YOU CAN'T TELL US DRUG LEGALIZATION IS IMPOSSIBLE

Writing in The American Interest, esteemed political scientist 
Francis Fukuyama called on the United States to do more to help 
Mexico in its battle with the drug trade --namely by boosting 
security on both sides of the border and assisting reform of the 
Mexican justice system. So far, so routine. But then Fukuyama made an 
interesting observation.

The ultimate source of the problem, Fukuyama noted, is American 
demand for illicit drugs--and "the most straightforward way to reduce 
demand, of course, would be legalization under a tightly controlled regime."

Note the phrase "of course." Fukuyama is a leading American thinker, 
a conservative, whose views are widely respected by powerful people. 
And he is saying, almost with a shrug, that it's perfectly obvious 
that legalization would do away with the most terrible problems 
associated with illicit drugs. But then politics rushes in. "While 
legalization has been proposed by many people over the years," 
Fukuyama writes, "it has very little chance of being enacted by 
Congress, and therefore is not for the time being a realistic policy choice."

For those of us who think the criminal prohibition of the production, 
sale and possession of (some) drugs is the single most destructive 
public policy of the last century, Fukuyama's argument may be 
frustrating. First, he raises the possibility that serious policy 
thinkers finally get it. Then, he dismisses legalization as a fantasy.

But keep some history in mind. "There is as much chance of repealing 
the 18th Amendment as there is for a hummingbird to fly to the planet 
Mars with the Washington Monument tied to its tail," claimed Morris 
Sheppard, aU. S. senator from Texas.

The 18th Amendment was the constitutional provision banning alcohol. 
It was passed in 1920. Sheppard made his statement in 1930.

The 18th Amendment was repealed in 1933. Sheppard wasn't the only one 
caught out by history. Far from it.

"They can never repeal it," boasted Congressman Andrew Volstead in 1921.

"I will never see the day when the 18th Amendment is out of the 
Constitution of the U. S.," said Senator William Borah in 1929.

Prohibition's supporters had good reason to be confident. 
Legalization wasn't merely unpopular. It required an amendment to the 
Constitution. "Thirteen states with a population less than that of 
New York state alone can prevent repeal until Halley's Comet 
returns," Clarence Darrow observed when Prohibition came into force 
in 1920. "One might as well talk about his summer vacation on Mars."

So what happened? Prohibition failed. It failed blatantly, 
spectacularly. Instead of the sunny nation where children grew up 
innocent of the evils of alcohol, the United States became the land 
of bathtub gin and speakeasies. It also became the land of 
opportunity for every thug looking to make big money, which 
inevitably meant corruption and gangland violence on a scale never 
before experienced.

But just as important was the coming of the Depression. While the 
economy roared, most people were prepared to put up with an 
idealistic, but futile crusade. But with banks crashing and 
unemployment soaring, Prohibition felt like what it was--an asinine 
waste of time and money.

The solution became obvious. It became something you describe with 
the phrase "of course."Of course alcohol should be legalized. Of 
course. In the end, Prohibition went quietly. No, I don't think we 
are at our own "of course"moment. But it is conceivable we are 
heading that way.

In private conversations, I have heard many senior people say "of 
course." I suspect the number of those thinking "of course" grows daily.

CNN's coverage of the bloodshed in Mexico has repeatedly raised 
legalization as an option worth debating. That's a big change.

Critically, however, we lack the personal experience that people had 
when they judged alcohol prohibition a failure. Most people today 
don't know that drugs have not always been criminalized. Fewer still 
know that when drugs were legal, they were not a source of ghettos, 
gang wars and narco-states.

They do know, however, that developed countries spend tens of 
billions of dollars every year trying to stamp out the illicit drug 
trade. And they do know drugs are cheaper and more widely available than ever.

They also know we face an economic crisis. As in 1933, they may 
conclude that there are better ways to spend precious tax dollars 
than trying to enforce unenforceable laws.

The political barrier remains massive, but in politics even the 
mightiest wall can turn to vapour with startling speed--a fact 
Fukuyama implicitly acknowledged when he said legalization was not a 
realistic policy choice "for the time being."

It was impossible that alcohol would be legalized only a few years 
before it was legalized. It was impossible that a black man would 
become president of the United States in the year that the black 
president of the United States was born.

The history of politics is stuffed with such transformation. Only 15 
years ago, the NDP government of Ontario tore itself apart over a 
modest plan to extend benefits to same-sex partners. Gay marriage? 
Gay marriage was a fantasy. And today, that fantasy is law.

Never doubt that hummingbirds can fly to Mars.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom