Pubdate: Fri, 19 Oct 2012
Source: Daily Nexus (UC Santa Barbara, CA Edu)
Copyright: 2012 Daily Nexus
Contact:  http://www.dailynexus.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2729
Author: Mark Strong
Note: Michael Roe has a simple philosophy: ignite blunts, not bombs.

REGULATION NOT INCARCERATION: WHY AMERICA'S DRUG POLICY NEEDS SOME REHAB

In the past 40 years, America has spent a lot of money fighting 
foreign wars. Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq again, Afghanistan and these wars 
obviously come with a considerable price tag.

However, I'd like to take this opportunity to discuss an 
often-overlooked battle that also puts a hefty dent in the federal 
budget: the War on Drugs.

Since the 1970s, the American people were told increased spending on 
drug enforcement and harsher criminal sentencing would lead to 
reduced crime and drug use in the U.S. Instead, the exact opposite 
occurred. The drug addiction rate from 1970 to 2010 remains constant, 
fluctuating between 1 and 2 percent of the population. Meanwhile, 
drug control spending has skyrocketed. Since 1970, we've spent nearly 
$1.5 trillion fighting drugs. To put that figure in perspective, 
that's almost one tenth of our current national debt.

Given our longstanding and expensive commitment to fighting drugs, we 
must be winning, right? Yeah ... not so much. In short, the War on 
Drugs is an outdated and misguided endeavor that requires serious 
reworking. For example, drugs that may be considered less harmful 
than alcohol and tobacco, like marijuana, should be legalized so they 
can be regulated and taxed.

One facet of our drug policy that highlights its failure is the 
disproportionate number of minorities that are unfairly incarcerated 
for non-violent drug crimes. Since the 1970s, the number of 
imprisoned Americans has jumped by over 700 percent. According to a 
study released in 2008 from the Sentencing Project: "Disparity by 
Geography, The War on America's Cities," the proportion of white and 
black people who use drugs is about the same; however, black drug 
users are arrested at roughly three times the rate of their white counterparts.

I know we granted civil liberties to minorities a long time ago, but 
it seems as if our national drug policies still retain some racism. 
To make matters more absurd, among the 45 million arrests made for 
drug-related crimes, the majority have been for possession of marijuana.

Although we've tried our best to both educate and punish drug users, 
the fact of the matter is that people continue to use and abuse 
illicit substances like weed. Consequently, spending illogical 
amounts of money to incarcerate pot smokers makes zero sense and is a 
waste of taxpayer money, especially when, according to the most 
recent Gallup poll, 47 percent of Americans are in favor of 
legalizing marijuana.

Certain states are ready to jump on this progressive bandwagon. Not 
only did California nearly legalize weed in 2010, but Colorado, 
Washington and Oregon also have measures on their November ballots to 
legalize marijuana. In fact, among Colorado voters, the proposition 
to legalize pot is actually more popular than either of the current 
Presidential candidates.

Legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana is undoubtedly part of 
our national dialogue now, so why do our politicians continue to 
favor the outdated policies?

In the same vein, drug prohibition is far from new. Our current drug 
policy parallels prohibition measures in the 1920s. To remind 
readers, Prohibition was later repealed in 1933, because, by and 
large, not having legal alcohol around made conditions in America 
worse. Under Prohibition, organized crime spiked and Jay Gatsby still 
threw crazy sick, alcohol-fueled parties. Although it took 13 years, 
our predecessors recognized their lapse of judgment, and made alcohol 
legal again. Huzzah!

Legalizing marijuana under federal law would do the same thing for 
weed as ending Prohibition did for alcohol. If blazing blunts and 
bongs were legal, organized cartel crime on our Southern border would 
be greatly diminished, and assuming weed was to be taxed, it would 
generate desperately needed revenue. Basically, it's time to regulate 
our number one cash crop in the same way we oversee alcohol and tobacco sales.

For the misguided folks (like our current President) who suggest that 
marijuana should remain illegal, I say that drawing a comparison 
between marijuana, alcohol and tobacco products is entirely 
justified. Objectively speaking, marijuana is safer and results in 
fewer casualties than do either alcohol or tobacco. Also, unlike 
alcohol and tobacco, marijuana is clinically proven to benefit 
terminally-ill cancer patients.

So how do we fix our problematic drug enforcement system? By 
directing our focus and money away from drug law enforcement and 
toward drug education, we could potentially reduce the number of 
individuals who smoke marijuana. It's the exact same strategy we've 
used to reduce the number of teenage cigarette smokers by half.

Americans seem to forget that two out of the past three American 
Presidents have admitted to smoking weed. Were they imprisoned for 
doing what any coming-of-age youth would consider run-of-the-mill 
experimentation? No.

Might as well crown Clinton and Obama the "Cheech and Chong" of the 
oval office. Then again, isn't their drug use a prime example of how 
smoking weed is relatively harmless and thus deserves the same legal 
status as alcohol and tobacco?

If marijuana is not regulated like alcohol and tobacco sometime in 
the next four years, I plan to do something really drastic: Like most 
other students at UCSB, I plan to undermine the fabric of our great 
American society by continuing to commit such misdemeanor crimes ... 
one puff at a time.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom