The Supreme Court has handed the marijuana-legalization movement an important victory. Two states - Nebraska and Oklahoma - sought to invalidate the landmark Colorado measure known as Amendment 64, which legalized recreational marijuana in that state. But the challenge fell flat when the Court announced last week that it wouldn't hear their case. That means the Colorado law will remain in effect - and more states can opt to legalize also. No one can deny the gathering momentum behind the legalization movement. Since 2012, four states have approved referenda that essentially legalize marijuana for recreational purposes: [continues 571 words]
If the president wants to decriminalize marijuana, he should push Congress to change the law. Last November, voters in Colorado and Washington approved referenda that essentially repealed their state criminal statutes pertaining to marijuana possession. Since federal law is unaffected by that, the doctrine of federal supremacy is not in play. There is a historical precedent for all this. The misguided policy of alcohol prohibition did not unravel all at once. It began when states like New York repealed their criminal bans. In a few more years, most states will regulate marijuana like liquor and the federal law will eventually follow. Tim Lynch Cato Institute Washington [end]
The Heritage Foundation recently published a legal memorandum that expresses alarm about the upcoming ballot initiative in California, Proposition 19, which would basically legalize cannabis. The paper warns that the measure will bring negative consequences--crime, birth defects, and social dislocation--so its analysis warrants a close read. To support its conclusion, the memorandum makes many claims. Let's examine some of them. First, the Heritage memorandum claims that "No one knows the specifics of how marijuana decriminalization would work in practice." This is wrong. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized not only marijuana but all drugs. The Cato Institute published a report after the policy had been in place several years and it turns out that the doomsayers were wrong. The predicted spike in drug use never happened. Other countries in Europe are studying Portugal and are moving away from the hard-line criminal approach to drug use. [continues 698 words]
Voters are disgusted by the reckless spending of politicians in Washington. The backlash is coming, so policymakers are now scrambling to do something, or at least be seen as doing something, about the enormous federal debt. Now is a good time for Congress to abolish government agencies that are outdated, dysfunctional or just unnecessary. A prime candidate for abolition is the office of the so-called "drug czar." The position of the drug czar was created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1988. It was a time of drug war hysteria. Former first lady Nancy Reagan called casual drug users "accomplices to murder." President George H.W. Bush vowed to make the war one of his top priorities. During his inaugural address, he said, "Take my word for it. This scourge will stop." The conservative firebrand William Bennett became the first czar and made headlines with brash talk of beheading drug dealers. The nation's capital was declared to be a "high intensity drug-trafficking" zone. There were raids and arrests - including the notorious trial of then-Mayor Marion Barry. [continues 584 words]
The international war against the black market trade in narcotics seems to be at a tipping point, as a new approach is gaining traction globally: decriminalization. More and more policymakers are coming to the view that it is wrong to jail drug users as criminals. Last November, Massachusetts voters approved a referendum that decriminalized marijuana. In December 2007, voters in Denver approved a law that made adult marijuana possession the city's "lowest law-enforcement priority." In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced it is time to closely study the decriminalization of marijuana, which is already the state's largest cash crop. [continues 480 words]
Our new drug czar, John Walters, is very concerned about the mounting opposition to the federal government's war on drugs ("Don't Legalize Drugs," editorial page, July 19). He notes that several European nations, such as Portugal and Britain, have recently liberalized their drug laws. But we should welcome, not fear, these developments. It is interesting to note how markedly the drug policy debate has changed over the past 10 years. During the 1980s, Nancy Reagan said casual drug users were accomplices to murder. William Bennett made headlines with talk of executing drug dealers. No one speaks in those terms today. Nowadays, drug warriors like to give speeches about drug courts and mandatory treatment programs. Despite the softer tone, however, police agents continue to wiretap and raid and arrest hundreds of thousands of people. Most notably, there has been no retreat from the proposition that drug users are criminals who must be punished. Only a lamentable lack of jail space prevents Mr. Walters from ordering a more widespread crackdown on people who choose to ingest marijuana, steroids or cocaine. [continues 572 words]
It is increasingly apparent that William Bennett is in a state of denial with respect to the myriad effects of a legal ban on marijuana, cocaine, opium and other drugs ("We Need a Drug Czar Now," editorial page, Nov. 29). He has only recently discovered one of the ugly side-effects of driving a lucrative market underground, namely, that the revenues are channeled into an underworld occupied by an assortment of shady criminals, corrupt politicians and, yes, terrorists. But instead of coming to grips with the blowback effect of enriching the enemies of civil society, Mr. Bennett wants us to wear blinders and stay the course. [continues 486 words]
Where possible the sources listed below are hyperlinked to a free online copy, or to buy online from Amazon, or to the relevant publisher. Sources For "Stumbling In The Dark" "Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times and Places" by Robert MacCoun and Peter Reuter, Cambridge University Press 2001. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/052179997X/theeconomist "Illegal Drugs, Economy and Society in the Andes." By Francisco E. Thoumi, to be published by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington DC, 2002. [continues 839 words]
America's drug policies are never seriously debated in Washington. Year after year, our elected representatives focus on two questions: How much more money should we spend on the drug war? and, How should it be spent? In the months preceding elections, politicians typically try to pin blame for the drug problem on one another. After the election, the cycle begins anew. Outside the capital, however, there is growing unease about the war on drugs. More and more Americans are concluding that the drug war has been given a chance to work and has failed. Voters in California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Alaska, and Maine have rejected the lobbying efforts of federal officials and approved initiatives calling for the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Two sitting governors, Jesse Ventura of Minnesota and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, have declared the drug war a failure. As public opinion continues to turn against the war, we can expect more elected officials to speak out. [continues 1701 words]
Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey pats himself on the back for waging a successful war on drugs in the past five years ("Departing drug czar cites progress, says more to be done," Jan. 5). Like most bureaucrats, he measures his "effectiveness" by the amount of money he spends. That is why Gen. McCaffrey touts the fact that federal spending on drug programs has increased 55 percent in recent years. Gen. McCaffrey has been urging President-elect George W. Bush to "stay the course" with the federal drug war, but Mr. Bush should pause to consider where we are going. [continues 159 words]
America's criminal justice system is going to make history this month as the number of incarcerated people surpasses 2 million for the first time. But this is a development for which neither political party will attempt to claim credit. Indeed, people across the political spectrum seem to recognize that this is a sad occasion - an occasion that raises a nagging question: Why do so many Americans need to be kept behind iron bars? To appreciate why this is such an extraordinary moment, one needs to put the 2-million-prisoner factoid into context. It took more than 200 years for America to hold 1 million prisoners all at once, yet we have managed to incarcerate the second million in only the past 10 years. Analysts at the Justice Policy Institute point out that our per capita incarceration rate is now second only to Russia's - hardly something to be touted as an achievement. [continues 594 words]
America's criminal justice system is going to make history this month as the number of incarcerated people surpasses 2 million for the first time. But this is a development for which neither political party will attempt to claim credit. Indeed, people across the political spectrum seem to recognize that this is a sad occasion - an occasion that raises a nagging question: Why do so many Americans need to be kept behind iron bars? To appreciate why this is such an extraordinary moment, one needs to put the 2-million-prisoner factoid into context. It took more than 200 years for America to hold 1 million prisoners all at once. And yet we have managed to incarcerate the second million in only the past 10 years. Analysts at the Justice Policy Institute point out that our per capita incarceration rate is now second only to Russia's. This is hardly something that anyone would tout as an achievement. [continues 629 words]
Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey penned a bizarre attack on a Cato Institute conference that I organized [on October 5, 1999]. Let me respond to his various criticisms so readers can decide for themselves who is speaking honestly and forthrightly about drug policy and who is engaging in double talk. Gen. McCaffrey gave a very misleading impression to readers when he suggested our conference proceedings were held behind some sort of "smokescreen." Gen. McCaffrey tried to portray himself as a super sleuth for supposedly exposing our "real agenda," which is drug legalization. Readers should know that our conference was entitled "Beyond Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century." It is hardly a secret that Cato analysts have been calling for drug legalization for more than 20 years. No one needed the investigative assistance of the drug czar's office to discover that information. A simple phone call or visit to our web site would have satisfied anyone's curiosity about our work on the drug war. [continues 654 words]
