Pubdate: Mon, 20 Apr 2009
Source: Windsor Star (CN ON)
Copyright: 2009 The Windsor Star
Contact: http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/letters.html
Website: http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/501
Author: Dan Gardner, Canwest News Service
Note: 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

(CNS) - 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, a U.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The 18th Amendment was repealed in 1933.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 Halle"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, for one thing. 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 Great 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 something 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, 
notwithstanding Francis Fukuyama's "of course." 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 it grows daily.

CNN's coverage of the bloodshed in Mexico has repeatedly raised 
legalization as an option worth debating. That" 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 ghettoes, 
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