A Case for Legalization

The talk of this [January 13, 2009] week in El Paso is the city council resolution that failed to pass after being vetoed by Mayor John Cook, and which was later re-phrased and re-voted based on a recommendation from U.S. Representative Silvestre Reyes. The controversy was sparked by a simple sentence at the end of the original resolution, intended to condemn the violence in Juarez, inviting a sincere and open debate on reforming current drug policy throughout the nation – particularly legalizing certain drugs.

Though the provision was struck down, Beto O’Rourke, original proponent of including the invitation to debate in the resolution, pointed out that it is “still important to have the type of conversations that will truly address the drug issues along the border, even if they make the established leadership uncomfortable.”

O’Rourke’s resolution seemed to suggest that the astonishing levels of violence registered in Juarez in the last year or so could be resolved or reduced through the legalization of drugs in the United States. Why was this so inflammatory to Congressman Reyes? If anything, O’Rourke’s resolution was, in my opinion, a glimplse of politics that actually make sense in the times that we are living.

Dating back to the turn of the twentieth century, US drug policy has been based on fear and moralistic sensibilites towards addictive substances. The prohibition of marijuana, for example, began in the 1930s as a reaction to marijuana use among Mexicans. The drug was seen as a source of deviant behavior, and several states began to tax it or even forbid it completely. The media published sensationalist accounts of violent crimes being committed under the influence of marijuana (many times exaggerated), and marijuana acquired the negative reputation that it continues to have today in mainstream politics. In his warning letter against passing the resolution, Congressman Reyes said that “its passage would be counterproductive to our efforts to enact an ambitious legislative agenda at the federal level.”

Nevertheless, marijuana use is today more widespread than ever, crossing barriers of gender, age and ethnicity. The World Drug Report 2008 calls marijuana “the most commonly used drug in the world.” Consumption prevalence in the US has remained more or less the same in the last couple of decades, with about 10% of the population consuming it on a regular basis since the 1980s. The rate among high school students has been significantly higher, currently about 30%. Some sources have concluded that about 42% of the living US population has tried marijuana.

The consequences of banning drugs in an absolute, irrational manner have numberless ramifications. The US has already experienced once what mindless prohibition of an addictive substance can do. The prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the 1930s did little to stop either, and furthermore created an illegal market for the product, run by violent organizations that spread a whole other plethora of socially harmful criminal phenomena like violent gang wars, kidnappings and corruption of law enforcement and political officials. Does any of this sound familiar? Attempting to “un-invent” drugs, or in this case any source of pleasure, does not work. Psychoactive substances have been around for thousands of years, embedded one way or another in the daily lives and cultural practices of peoples. The increased availability of them has not changed this.

While current drug policies have done little to hinder drug production, trafficking and consumption in the US, they have disproportionately impacted the lives of thousands of people. Incarceration rates for African Americans and Hispanics are significantly higher than for whites. The ACLU reports that currently, about a third of all black men in productive age are in prisons, leading scholars to conclude that the criminal justice system of the states contains a racial bias, very often stemming from drug policies and related sentencing. In the same way that marijuana was identified with Mexicans and deviant behavior, possession crack cocaine (the form of the drug most used by blacks and Hispanics) is currently punished far more severely than possession of powder cocaine (more commonly consumed by whites). The way they stand, drug policies today are serving institutional racism and imposing the views of the elite on some substances upon minorities.

In 2000, estimates suggest that Americans were spending about $70 billion in illegal drugs per year, about 17% of the world’s consumption according to UN estimates. As it is, the market for drugs is cartel-dominated, meaning that drug trafficking organizations name their prices as competition is based not on market forces but on violent confrontation. In this sense, keeping drugs illegal actually favors drug traffickers, as they are able to keep the bulk of their monstrous revenue, spending money in more illegal enterprises and a lavish lifestyle. Would it not be fairer for that revenue to be taxed (maybe even use the tax revenue in drug education programs) and for the business to be open to a market where competition is just and regulated?

Another problem with the fear-based approach to drugs is the fact that the drugs produced and consumed are virtually impossible to monitor. The government cannot realistically expect to regulate the safety of drugs sold to people, meaning that consumers are continuously at risk. Were drugs to be legalized, the government could intervene to regulate the dosing and quality of drugs being sold.

Perpetuating a blindly prohibitive approach to drugs also hinders our ability to understand and take advantage of benefits they may have. The medicinal uses of marijuana, for example, are already recognized in some states as valuable in the treatment of asthma, diabetes, diseases causing chronic pain, glaucoma, AIDS, etc. This, however, has created a problem for these states, as possession of certain amounts is federally prohibited, even if the state allows it and recognizes the patient as a legitimate user.

Another benefit that marijuana has and federal drug policy has incapacitated us to take advantage of is the use of hemp fiber. Hemp is a variety of cannabis sativa whose leaves are unfit for consumption as a drug, since the concentration of THC is very low. What hemp does provide, however, is a very resistent, eco-friendly and cheap-to-produce fiber. Hemp seeds and hemp seed oil also have multiple uses in food production. Because of its contempt for anything remotely related to drugs, all but a few states ban the production of industrial hemp and until 2002 the DEA had restrictions on imports. Because of that, the US must spend millions of dollars in imports of hemp products. Plants that yield illegal substances could have other benefits and uses, but the stigma attached to them impairs us from tapping into those in a responsible manner.

At a time like this a conscious, open debate on drug policy is exactly what the US needs. It is simply inadmissible to shut down those voices who are trying to bring about change for the better. We need more politicians who are willing to challenge the intransigent political establishment, who will finally usher in policies that are educated and which exalt freedom, not fear.

This blog was originally posted on thecommunistson. The RI has no affiliation with thecommunistson.