Pubdate: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 Source: Houston Chronicle (TX) Copyright: 2010 Houston Chronicle Publishing Company Division, Hearst Newspaper Contact: http://www.chron.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/198 Authors: Erika De La Garza and William Martin Note: De La Garza is program director of the Latin American Initiative at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice; Martin is the Harry and Hazel Chavanne Senior Fellow in Religion and Public Policy at the Baker Institute. Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Latin+America Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/War+on+Drugs Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?261 (Cannabis - United States) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California) TIME FOR LATIN AMERICA TO RECONSIDER PROHIBITION On Tuesday, prohibitionists once again managed to hold a fraying line when Californians defeated Proposition 19, which would have legalized the production, sale and use of small quantities of marijuana by people 21 or older. Though disappointed by the results, Prop 19 supporters have considerable cause for optimism. The approximately 46 percent of those who approved the measure was overweighted with younger voters. For them, legalization is a matter of when, not if. That assessment is supported by the ease with which Californians can already obtain cannabis legally at hundreds of medical dispensaries in the state and by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's recently signing into law a bill that reduces the penalties for marijuana possession from a misdemeanor to an infraction comparable to a traffic ticket. The scent blowin' in the wind is unmistakable, and where California leads, others will follow. Among those presumably pleased by Prop 19's defeat in this contest were Presidents Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and Felipe Calderon of Mexico, both of whom had criticized the measure. How, they asked, could they send peasant farmers in their countries to jail for growing a crop they could legally sell in California? And how could the United States, which has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on its 40-year War on Drugs, even consider legalizing the drug it has battled so vigorously? This opinion contrasts sharply with that of their predecessors, Presidents Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, who joined President Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil and a blue-ribbon assemblage of decision-makers in recommending the decriminalization of marijuana in the 2009 Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy. As with any policy proposal, one must consider the ultimate goal. In assessing the anti-drug effort known as Plan Colombia, critics note that the billions of dollars the U.S. poured into that campaign did not significantly decrease the shipment of cocaine to the United States. Supporters of Plan Colombia, however, point out that the Medellin and Cali cartels were dramatically crippled and dismantled and that Medellin is no longer one of the most dangerous cities in the world. If the objective of Plan Colombia was to decrease drug production -- or even consumption - the policy clearly failed. If it was to make Colombia a safer country by dismantling the major drug cartels, it may have succeeded. What might legalizing marijuana achieve? In 2009, law-enforcement officials made nearly 860,000 arrests in this country for marijuana violations. Of those charged, nearly 88 percent were for possession only. Legalization supporters argue that regulating and taxing marijuana would dramatically reduce costs associated with arrests, adjudication and incarceration, and would provide revenue that could be used for drug education and treatment. They also argue that legalization would significantly shrink the income of drug-trafficking organizations. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) long asserted that marijuana provides at least 60 percent of the Mexican cartels' income. The actual figure is likely lower than that - the ONDCP now calls precise estimates "problematic"- but making the drug available legally would clearly affect the cartels' operations, particularly if other states were to follow California's lead. Of course, the cartels would continue to traffic in cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines and to engage in other crimes such as kidnapping and extortion. Indeed, prohibitionist policies have enabled these criminal gangs to amass such wealth, strength and sophistication that the wounds legal marijuana would inflict would be severe, but not fatal. We can't be certain about the full effects legalization would produce. We do know that long-standing efforts to reduce production and consumption by focusing on eradication, interdiction and incarceration have failed, with tragic consequences. Had it passed, Prop 19 wouldn't have solved all the grave problems associated with drugs in California, Mexico, or anywhere else. Yet even bringing it to a public vote - and, in the process, making it a topic of serious national conversation - was a huge step in the right direction. In October's XII Tuxtla Summit, a political discussion forum among Mexico, Colombia, the seven Central American countries and the Dominican Republic, there was a strong regional commitment to develop coordinated policies to combat the problems associated with drugs and transnational organized crime. All heads of state and their representatives at the summit agreed - as does President Obama - that drug trafficking is a shared problem with shared responsibility and needs to be addressed with coordinated, joint actions. Instead of reprimanding the U.S. and Californians for Prop 19 - as they did at the Tuxtla Summit - Latin American heads of state should embrace and promote open debates about drug policy among decision-makers, law-enforcement officials, health care professionals, and the general public. A drug-free America, South or North, is a fantasy, Zero Tolerance a destructive delusion. Just saying no to prohibition will not solve all the problems caused by the use of drugs, legal and illegal, but it is a necessary start. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake