Category — Tax and Regulate

Back in May, the Associated Press published the first piece in a groundbreaking series concluding that, after 40 years and more than $1 trillion spent, America’s war on drugs “has failed to meet any of its goals.” Today, as part of the same series, the AP looks specifically at U.S. enforcement strategy toward drug cartels in Mexico, and concludes that even record-level arrests and seizures have failed absolutely to curb the power of the violent gangs that control vast swaths of northern Mexico and make billions by selling drugs, particularly marijuana, to the illicit U.S. market.

Boiled down, it’s a damning indictment of prohibition – and more importantly, the assumption that if we just arrest enough people, and seize enough drugs, then these bloodthirsty, increasingly powerful cartels will somehow just go away.

Citing just one example, a major DEA operation that arrested 761 members of the Sinaloa drug cartel and seized 23 tons of narcotics, the AP quotes acting Drug Enforcement Administration chief Michele Leonhart, as declaring: “Today we have dealt the Sinaloa drug cartel a crushing blow.”

But just how crushing was it? An Associated Press investigation casts doubt on whether the crackdown caused any significant setback for the cartel. It still ranks near the top of Mexico’s drug gangs, and most of those arrested were underlings who had little connection to the cartel and were swiftly replaced. The cartel leader remains free, along with his top commanders.

The findings confirm what many critics of the drug war have said for years: The government is quick to boast about large arrests or drug seizures, but many of its most-publicized efforts result in little, if any, slowdown in the drug trade.

When confronted by the AP with the fact that the current U.S. enforcement strategy is futile, DEA Deputy Director David Gaddas insisted such tactics work, reportedly arguing, “it’s disruptive for cartels to lose their drivers, their accountants, and their money launderers.”

Yes, but aren’t the drugs they seize a fraction of those on the street, and the criminals arrested replaced or released?

Gaddas dropped his head into his hands for a moment, thinking.

“You know, we’re doing God’s work,” he replied.

I never realized that was who told the DEA how to go about its business.

All kidding aside, that’s an unbelievably lame excuse. Hardly a week goes by now without a mainstream media report of the increasing carnage in Mexico, the discovery of yet another elaborate tunnel they cartels have used to smuggle marijuana into the United States, or the political and social tension that Mexican instability and violence are causing along our southern border. If you read the entire AP article, it cites one frustrating example after another.

And the DEA sits there and claims – despite mountains of evidence to the contrary – that its strategy is working.

Thankfully, a major news organization like the AP has now – finally – read the writing on the wall and spelled it out with meticulous detail: current U.S. drug policy does not work. It does not reduce crime, does not reduce use, does not reduce availability, does not weaken major drug traffickers.

So what should we do instead? How else can we strike a blow against these murderous cartel thugs?

Well, according to former Mexico presidents, leading Mexican intellectuals, a sitting U.S. federal judge, a former U.S. border governor, and many others, the single most effective thing the U.S. could do would be to remove marijuana from the criminal market, and tax and regulate it like alcohol. Deny the cartels their most lucrative product, and make border cops spend their time on more worthwhile activities than arresting Willie Nelson.

The DEA announced today that it will temporarily classify five synthetic chemicals that mimic the effects of marijuana as Schedule 1 drugs, meaning they have no medical value, a high potential for abuse, and will be illegal to sell, purchase, or use. (Marijuana itself, as many of us are already well aware, is also classified as a Schedule 1 drug).

The move comes after more than a dozen states nationwide have passed bans on the herbal blends, which go by names such as “Spice” and “K2,” and — while advertised as “not for human consumption” — were sold in smoke shops around the country and used by customers as a legal alternative to marijuana. The products generally do not show up on drug tests, but there have been various reports of them causing adverse health effects, including accelerated heart rates, increased blood pressure, and several documented trips to the emergency room.

As I have argued before, the prevalence of these substances is simply another unintended consequence of the government’s irrational prohibition on natural, whole-plant marijuana, which comes with none of the side effects attributed to these chemical knock-offs. The DEA’s ban on the five synthetic versions could take effect in 30 days and last for at least a year, but as I’ve said before, the bans on fake marijuana will ultimately be as ineffective as the ban on real marijuana (used by 17 million Americans monthly, despite its Schedule 1 status) and could lead users and suppliers to begin experimenting with other, possibly more dangerous synthetic variants that mimic marijuana’s effects. [Read more →]

There are now 15 states with medical marijuana laws, but at a Senate committee hearing yesterday to confirm the next head of the DEA, not a single person asked nominee Michele Leonhart how she would address this growing divide between state and federal marijuana policy. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R – AL) did, however, take the opportunity to make sure Leonhart will remain a loyal, unquestioning, die-hard drug warrior.

Mike Riggs has the story in today’s Daily Caller:

Perhaps due to the failure of Prop 19 in California (and despite the passage of medical marijuana in Arizona), Kohl, along with Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Al Franken of Minnesota, made no mention of medical marijuana. Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, however, made it his prime focus.

“I’m a big fan of the DEA,” said Sessions, before asking Leonhart point blank if she would fight medical marijuana legalization.

“I have seen what marijuana use has done to young people, I have seen the abuse, I have seen what it’s done to families. It’s bad,” Leonhart said. “If confirmed as administrator, we would continue to enforce the federal drug laws.”

“These legalization efforts sound good to people,” Sessions quipped. “They say, ‘We could just end the problem of drugs if we could just make it legal.’ But any country that’s tried that, Alaska and other places have tried it, have failed. It does not work,” Sessions said.

“We need people who are willing to say that. Are you willing to say that?” Sessions asked Leonhart.

“Yes, I’ve said that, senator. You’re absolutely correct [about] the social costs from drug abuse, especially from marijuana,” Leonhart said. “Legalizers say it will help the Mexican cartel situation; it won’t. It will allow states to balance budgets; it won’t. No one is looking [at] the social costs of legalizing drugs.”

Actually, Ms. Leonhart, there is a vast academic literature exploring the social cost of liberalizing drug laws, and the overwhelming conclusion most studies reach is that prohibition does far more harm than most of the substances themselves ever could, especially marijuana. Riggs cites just one example, a 2009 Cato Institute white paper released eight years after Portgual decriminalized illegal drugs, which concludes: “None of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents — from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for ‘drug tourists’ — has occurred.” He could have also cited another Cato study from this year showing that the U.S. could improve its national budget by nearly $18 billion a year if marijuana were taxed and regulated like alcohol, a legal substance that has eight times the health care costs of marijuana, and is – according to one California study – responsible for 403 times more emergency room admissions than marijuana.

But in the twisted fantasyland where people like Sessions and Leonhart spend most of their time, things like “facts” and “studies” don’t seem to carry as much weight as the unshakeable notion that drugs are bad and so, in positions of authority, “we need people who are willing to say that,” as Sessions put it.

The disgraceful exchange between Leonhart and Sessions is just another example of how the American public is far ahead of politicians when it comes to marijuana policy reform issues, and why our movement will continue to look to individual states – and not the federal government – to drive change.

California voters may have rejected Proposition 19 last week, but a poll released after the election shows that a majority of California voters still believe marijuana should be legal in principle, and that our current laws do more harm than good.

The poll from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research found that:

• 50 percent of California voters believe the use of marijuana should be made legal, regardless of their feelings on Prop. 19.
• 52 percent of voters believe our marijuana laws do more harm than good, agreeing that, “Like alcohol prohibition, laws against marijuana do more harm than good.” Only 37 percent disagreed with this statement.
• 31 percent of people who voted “no” on Prop. 19 believe marijuana should be legal, and agreed to the statement, “I believe marijuana should be legalized or penalties for marijuana should be reduced, but I opposed some of the specifics of Proposition 19.”
• 44 percent of voters believe legalization is inevitable, including 25 percent who voted against Prop. 19.

The survey’s most striking find is that if youth voters had turned out last week in the numbers they typically do during a presidential election year, Proposition 19 would have been statistically tied, with 49 percent voting yes to 51 voting no. That statistic and others reinforces our belief that a different measure to end marijuana prohibition would be well poised for victory in 2012 in a state like California or Colorado.

And if that isn’t enough to convince people that the movement to make marijuana legal is exponentially gaining strength, not losing it, consider this: In last week’s California election, Republican Meg Whitman spent an unprecedented $160 million on her campaign to become governor, and she lost, receiving only 3.1 million votes, or about 41 percent overall. The Proposition 19 campaign, on the other hand, spent only about $4 million, and Prop. 19 received 3.4 million votes (or 46 percent) – beating Whitman handily.

With solid funding, a healthy turnout by young voters, and a coalition of allies that is now larger and stronger because of the Prop. 19 campaign, there is every reason to believe we can be victorious in another two years. Don’t give up hope.

In the aftermath of at least three defeated statewide marijuana ballot measures on Election Day, people who aren’t following the issue that closely might be inclined to think the pendulum is swinging against marijuana policy reform.

They’d be wrong.

In fact, a 46% vote in favor of California’s Proposition 19 – accompanied by a collection of smaller, less-publicized marijuana-policy-reform victories across the country – is yet another sign of the growing strength of the movement to end marijuana prohibition.

Now, more than ever, I’m confident that we’re heading toward eventual victory.

[Read more →]