Blogs and Stories
America Should Decriminalize Drugs
During President Obama’s trip to Mexico last week, he and Mexican President Felipe Calderón announced an ambitious bilateral agenda, vowing to crush organized crime in that country. Gaviria, however, thinks that “what is happening in Mexico is very similar” to what he saw in Colombia in the ‘90s. “President Calderón decided to confront the cartels at a moment when they were starting to become too powerful,” he says, “and I am sure the Mexicans will eventually dismantle the main organizations and improve their country’s security.” Yet he is convinced that “drugs will continue to flow into the U.S.,” adding that “it is a failed policy to think that the drug problem will be solved in the supply countries. It has never worked out that way.”
Today, decriminalization is the centerpiece of Gaviria’s philosophy on drug policy. Asked which drugs he thinks should be decriminalized, Gaviria answers, “I think all of them. But, at least, the U.S. and the countries of Latin America should start with marijuana. In this case, it is very clear that putting a person in jail destroys a life while trying to solve a minor problem that can be much better dealt with by doctors, family, churches, or [non-governmental organizations].”
“Most cities in the United States continue to use a program that was first implemented in Los Angeles, but was later abandoned by that city because they considered it ineffective,” he continues, referring to the D.A.R.E. drug-education program. “It consisted of having policemen go to schools to give moral speeches and intimidating messages.”
In 1999, the U.S. government pledged more than $6 billion in aid to Colombia, in the hopes of reducing the production of illegal drugs by 50 percent in six years. According to Gaviria, the initiative, known as Plan Colombia, was “an extraordinary exercise,” which proved “very useful for the security of Colombia, but a failure as an effort to reduce the flow of drugs to the U.S., Europe, and Latin America.”
Gaviria says he believes that “the U.S. should start thinking about dealing with consumption, based on the European model.” He advises that “resources should be moved from law enforcement and the prison system to the health system and to prevention.”
“What we need is a policy that is based on experience and research, not on prejudices, fears, and ideology. And I think there is a better climate to start a debate now in the U.S. The new drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, has plenty of experience dealing with this problem as Seattle’s former police chief. He seems open-minded, and in his first statement he talked about reducing consumption as his most important task. Until now, he has not used the expression ‘War on Drugs.’ Speaking at Northwestern University during his 2004 Senate campaign, President Obama said the War on Drugs was an utter failure. We hope this means that he will be open-minded.”
Xtra Insight: Obama's Demented Drug Policy by Radley Balko.
Constantino Diaz-Duran is a writer living in Manhattan. He has written for the New York Post, the Washington Blade, El Diario NY and the Orange County Register.
Celibate Celebrities
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
The Rove You Don't Know
Matt Latimer is the author of the New York Times bestseller, SPEECH-LESS: Tales of a White House Survivor. He was deputy director of speechwriting for George W. Bush and chief speechwriter for Donald Rumsfeld.
America's Craziest Cities
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Lingerie Drug Lord
Constantino Diaz-Duran has written for the New York Post, the Washington Blade, and the Orange County Register. He lives in Manhattan and is an avid Yankees fan. You'll find him on Twitter as @cddNY.
The Man Who Conned the Missionaries
Constantino Diaz-Duran has written for the New York Post, the Washington Blade, and the Orange County Register. He lives in Manhattan and is an avid Yankees fan. You'll find him on Twitter as @cddNY.
Sterilized for Being Poor?
Constantino Diaz-Duran has written for the New York Post, the Washington Blade, and the Orange County Register. He lives in Manhattan and is an avid Yankees fan. You'll find him on Twitter as @cddNY.
xbainx
Obama hasn't made a move on drugs because when he tries to raise taxes on the wealthy he is called a fascist.
When he merely talks about enacting stricter gun control, Texas threatens to secede.
So if he talks about legalizing drugs, that's one more unnecessary topic for the Irish goon squad at Fox News to cry about.
joymars
Irish goon squad. Good one!
Hawnzz
(snickers...)
idicula1979
Right on.
Ritarita
Hahahahahahaaha
roger37
Ritarita: It's
Haha
Ha
Hahaha
Haha
Ha.
mcmchugh99
If I were Obama, I wouldn't base any policies on what Texas, Fox "News" and the Republicans want. All of that is for Sarah Palin, not a reformist administration.
The Republicans are going to attack them no matter what they do, so they might as well do whatever they want.
Robertski
I just moved from Medford Oregon to Santa Clara, California. While in Oregon, there are mixed opinions about the legalization of drugs. I find that in California where the factors related to the drug trade have had a huge impact on families and the government expenditure, not to mention thousands of people in jail for drug crimes (this costs money), almost everyone gives the nod to legalization. There are few politicians with enough courage to follow logic.
waterproofer
1. Legalize Drugs & Tax the hell out of the industry.
2.Stop taxing income and start taxing consumption(ie. the FAIR TAX)
3.take control of our boarders by deploying the National Guard.
4. End "mark to market" accounting for the Banking industry.
WATERPROOFER
MoeJoe
You would really use the National Guard on boarders? Are you talking skate boarders of surf boarders? Don't you think that is a bit extreme?
As far as mark to market accountant was that the name of the first little piggy? I am not sure of what you are alluding to.
I do agree with the legalizing part but I don't know why you would "tax the hell out of it"... why should it be different than alcohol... wouldn't it just be another luxury tax? If you tax the hell out of it users would still want the cartels around... wouldn't they?
MoeJoe
OOps... did it again... I will be more patient with my postings in the future... sorry again!
MoeJoe
You would really use the National Guard on boarders? Are you talking skate boarders of surf boarders? Don't you think that is a bit extreme?
As far as "mark to market" accounting was mark the name of the first little piggy? I am not sure of what you are alluding to.
I do agree with the legalizing part but I don't know why you would "tax the hell out of it"... why should it be different than alcohol... wouldn't it just be another luxury tax? If you tax the hell out of it users would still want the cartels around... wouldn't they?
roger37
You know what will happen if we legalize drugs?
We'll TAKE THE MARGIN OUT OF IT, and nobody will be interested anymore because there's no profit. There won't be any more junkies than what we have already--and we will tax it and have another source of income to pay for the increased medical expenses that junkies cost us.
Too logical, though. I can just hear Fox News demagogueing this now......
joymars
It's a shame that Obama is not in the political position to legalize drugs. It just wouldn't look good. At least now.
But the DOJ could do a few soft shifts in enforcing laws. The ATF could do so as well.
Pot, LSD, Ecstasy. Stuff like that is OK as long as there's some regulation. But the meth thing is really nasty. So is heroin and crack. These are substances that have immediately pro-active nasty societal impacts. Yes, tobacco eventually kills, but it doesn't disrupt society immediately. That's why it was so difficult to legislate against. Alcohol doesn't always create alcoholics. But the substances above are 100% nasty.
If we make one group of drugs legal and not the other, what would that do? Same narco-trafficing, same violence.
What about everyone waking up and deciding to become mature stable adults on the face of this beautiful earth?
jds8181
"If we make one group of drugs legal and not the other, what would that do? Same narco-trafficing, same violence."
Even if only marijuana were legalized it would make a tremendous difference. The argument for legalization should be primarily economic. Marijuana accounts for over half the Mexican cartels' revenues, and by legalizing it we could cut the legs off these cartels so that they cannot use the marijuana trade to subsidize their trafficking efforts for coke, heroine, meth, etc.
As for your "everybody waking up and becoming mature stable adults" argument, why doesn't every one just wake up and not be depressed anymore, or wake up and not have bi-polar disorder, or anxiety? Your comment disregards reality.
buffgbob
Did anyone else see something strange in this article? I will be the first to admit that I don't know how to solve this problem and have done little research on the subject; however, two parts seemingly contradicted here.
"consumption ... is growing significantly in Europe."
"the U.S. should start thinking about dealing with consumption, based on the European model."
Now as I admitted earlier, I don't know a lot about the specifics. What was being asked was a sort of paradigm shift. Why make this huge change to something which apparently is unsuccessful?
On a side note for people's inevitable bashing of my post: I really don't care if they are legal or not.
itstrue
I think you're mistaken in understanding what the problem is. US policy is unsuccessful compared to Europe because we have exponentially higher numbers of non-violent criminals in prison on drug charges. There are over 2.3 million people currently incarcerated in the US. 37% of those people are there on drug charges, by far the largest percentage rate for any crime and about 30% of those people are in prison for possession of marijuana.
Europe's policies may be unsuccessful in preventing people from using drugs, but they are far more successful in not turning otherwise active, tax-paying citizens into criminals and in not costing the state billions of dollars on prosecuting and incarcerating individuals whose only crime was indulging in substances not sanctioned by the government.
Prohibition does not work and has never worked. Under Tsar Peter the Great in Russia, the penalty for smoking tobacco was to have one of your nostrils sliced, the second time you were caught, the penalty was death - and people still smoked!
The government's job and law enforcement's job is to protect people from harming each other, not from harming themselves. The amount of money we are spending enforcing drug prohibition is astounding, but there is a more important issue at stake - freedom. We have turned millions of our citizens into criminals, not because they robbed or killed or raped or damaged property, but all because they ingested something someone else a long time ago, usually for economic reasons (drug and chemical companies), decided they didn't want people to be able to enjoy.
This doesn't make sense. It's time to fix this mess.
buffgbob
My political ideology desires for people to be able to use drugs freely. I wrote a paper two years ago advocating the decriminalization of all drugs. One of my main arguments was the enormous expense it costs in incarcerate individuals and a persons' individual right to hurt themselves. I also referenced "Forbidden Fruit" and similar arguments believing it might actually decrease consumption.
I, however, don't think the situation is that simple. As time passes, I'm willing to compromise with this ideology in favor of results. I want what most people want, that the consumption of drugs is radically decreased.
Although I think rights of citizens and other similar arguments are legitimate, my reading of the article didn't bring up these points. There are some other comments saying I didn't "comprehend" the article. That is fine. To me the article was not a diatribe on the right of citizens to hurt themselves, but an argument explaining why our current strategy is ineffective at stemming the cause of the problem: namely consumption. Was my comprehension of those two quotes inaccurate?
Let us all search for the best possible result aside from prejudice. If we want the right to hurt ourselves, then we must assume some corresponding responsibility. What is that responsibility? Let's find one that diminishes the cause to the overall problem.
Hawnzz
itstrue
Good post... and good logic. It boggles my mind that such a fuss is made over marijuana when it is no more harmful then tobacco or alcohol. (Tobacco is far more addictive. I know, I've tried to quite 3 stinkin' times!)
PeteInAstoria
Didn't you watch Family Guy last night? Marijuana was made illegal because of William Randolph Hearst's timber interests! heheh.
Mugly067
buffgbob, comprehension can be a side effect of too many drugs, he is simply saying that the european models deals in health and saftey issues with respect to the user not incarceration and intimidation that is so popular in many states, unless your daddies rich and a congressman like your last hypocrite, er I mean president. Current day society can not deal responsibly with drugs, not because it can't, the 20% or so that basically make up the lion share of the outrage and indignation over drugs will never let it go nor understand the issue, these people have a vested interest in keeping the prohibition alive, they are law enforcement, prison guards lawyers and those filled with too many religious prejudices to even remotely approach the subject with common sense and frank debate. Drugs are good, life sucks, is it any wonder so many turn to drugs and politicians still just talk and talk, justifying torture and spending all the tax money on bombs and guns.
connie47
Your post is resoundingly depressing, mostly because it is true. There is a vested interest on our side of the border in keeping the drug industry alive and there always has been. Nice people don't talk about that. Heck, nice people don't even know about it.
Hawnzz
All too true...
nokware
It seems that those who support the idea of legalizing drugs fail to see the big picture. If you want an example, just look at the American Mob, a group who used illegal and often violent businesses practices to finance legal business, which were in turn use as fronts for more illegal businesses. And they brought that same ruthless culture with them wherever they want. Not good for communities or society at large.
I do not think cartels or anyone in the drug business would just suddenly let go of those billions of dollars just because the trade is legalized or because there are smaller profit. It's all they know. It's not only likely that these people would stay in business, but could use legal outlets to bring the same ruthless culture and other legal activitied that they did in their own country. I, for one, want none of that.
It's the people of the US that needs to take responsibility for themselves here. Stop using drugs, and cartels don't make money. Then they have no money to buy guns, recruit other members, terrorize communities, murder, extort, etc. It's a shame that people value getting high over the lives of others. If you really want to make a difference, take responsibility and stop using drugs.
Ritarita
nok
It would
Be great
But it's never
Going to happen
Repeat
Never going to happen.
And that's the
Problem
With most of what
Conservatives
Preach.
Real life
Needs
Real solutions.
And it's past
Time for
Some new
Thinking.
Fentro
Consider WHY people use drugs. To escape the emptiness inside. Why are we empty? Is it because consumerism is unfulfilling? Is it because our so-called "leaders" are actually the biggest crooks of all? Is it because instead of teaching peace, we teach violence? As with all of our current problems, we look at symptoms; we preserve the status quo; we WANT Bin Laden out there to justify the war profiteering and corruption (without the 'boogeyman', there's less excuse for our military industrial complex).
Imagine what we could do with the time, money, and effort directed at peaceful projects, like exploring Mars, or solving the energy conundrum. Read my blog: http://fentrosphere.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-to-fix-world-remove-assholes-f rom.html
Enough Hypocrisy already. Light up, my friends!
Ritarita
From here
Please go directly
To Bob Dylan
Blog.
Hawnzz
You can wish in one hand, and @#$% in the other. See which one gets filled first. (My grandfather used to say that.) Though what you post would be nice... it isn't realistic.
And if the money were not there, the cartels would crumble. That is how capitalism works. There is an irony in there...
MoeJoe
Do you know that hemp is one of the best solutions for alternative energy, and that Henry Ford built and powered the first Model-T out of Hemp?
Do you know that we can replace every single petrolium based product out of the same quality products made from hemp? What would that due to the environment? It would decrease pollution and augment the production of oxygen on a massive scale.
Do you know that hemp for many decades was the largest American export and that George wWashington farmed it? Do you now that we even went to war in 1812 over hemp (yeah... thats right. Check it out if you want.).
Do you know that there is massive support from our law enforcement departments across the country as well as massive support from our justice department for the legalization of marijuana? Check the records... you have the right to do so.
I could go on but what is the point? Some people take pride in their ignorance.
Ritarita
Moe
Didn't you
Take a lot of
Flak
For this same post
Previously?
MoeJoe
You mean when someone called me a dead head as an insult (which is funny because I am a Dead Head in the positive musical way)?
MoeJoe
Excuse me... I am playing parchesee with my kid... no... this is the first time I have posted this one... I just posted it twice because I lost the first half of my opinion the first time I submitted it. Why?
Ritarita
I remembered
A hemp rant
Thought it
Was you.
Who won?
Hawnzz
I remember a hemp rant as well. But hemp does get a bad rap.
roger37
A Model T powered by hemp? In the 1920's?
Wow. The possibilities are endless.
MoeJoe
"Demand for these drugs in the U.S. is what is helping to keep these cartels in business," - Wrong what keeps the cartels in business is that the cartels are main suppliers for the United State's demand... legalizing cognitive liberty (a much more important issue than legalizing marijuana) would end the need for the cartels. Do you want me to go slower so you can understand that?
"...the War on Drugs for several decades now has not brought the results that most of us expected." What it has brought has been enormous benefits to the prison industry. We have been building more and more prisons over the last thirty years while the crime rate has been dropping (check out the federal info available under the freedom of information act) over the same time frame. There is no way that there will be any legalization when that would mean emptying out over 30% of our prison space and stocks in private prisons are about the best return you can get on your money so there you go. Has anyone noticed that the not $900 million dollars of the stimulus package allotted to prison construction was kept while the $800 million allocated for schools was dropped due to Republican pressure. Do you still wonder why?
"It is a failure because there are hundreds of thousands of people jailed, while consumption remains basically unchanged in the U.S. and is growing significantly in Europe." Wrong - when you can accept the fact that all studies show that the countries in Europe that have legalized drug use have the lowest consumption rates of previously illegal drugs you will understand this statement for what it is... another lie.
"The fight against the drug cartels is unavoidable," Wrong - legalization would leave the cartels without clients... or is that another idea that is just too simple to understand.
Why don't you all check out what the American Medical Association has to say about the subject while you are at it? Marijuana is healthy for you and as a food product it has more protein than soya. Do you know that before 1927 over 60% of all prescription drugs were marijuana based?
Why don't you all check out the ramifications on the building industry while you are at it as well. Do you know that plywood made out of hemp is 2.5 times stronger in both tension and compression than normal plywood? Do you know that hemp board is naturally insect (termites included) resistant so it does not need to be soaked in arsenic (a poison for those of you who did not know) like ordinary lumber? Do you know that in most areas of the states you can get 4 harvests of hemp per year? Do you understand that that means hemp is the cheapest renewable building, food and energy source available?
Do you know that hemp is one of the best solutions for alternative energy, and that Henry Ford built and powered the first Model-T out of Hemp?
Do you know that we can replace every single petroleum based products with same quality products made from hemp? What would that due to the environment? It would decrease pollution and augment the production of oxygen on a massive scale.
Do you know that hemp for many decades was the largest American export and that George Washington farmed it himself (info available at the library of congress? Do you now that we even went to war in 1812 over hemp (yeah... that's right. Check it out if you want.)?
I could go on but what is the point? Some people take pride in their ignorance.
MoeJoe
PS: Sorry about the double entry... the first one did not appear to have gone thru!
allonfla
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that Columbia would want drugs in America legalized. Surprised Jamaica isn't pushing for ganja to be legalized in America - Man, the money they would make.
roger37
Not if it was legalized! If the user can get the product through the government or even via a private business, the huge profit margin would disappear, and the layers of distributors, dealers, etc. would disappear, to be replaced by tobacco companies operating at a normal consumer goods profit margin.
Also, the "cool" aspect of consuming something outside the law would also disappear, and user rates would probably decline or at least stabilize.
MoeJoe
As easy as that... it kind of makes you want to cry when you realize that no one in their right mind should be able to deny it today... We might even find ourselves with a new style Kennedy Family (maybe a little more relaxed), remember how they were propelled to political stardom with the money made off of supplying the publics demand for illegal alcohol!!
MoeJoe
Instead if NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement we could have a SAFDTA... South American Free Drug Trade Agreement!!!!!
squatingeagle
maybe if we would spend time educating kids about the proper use and the actual problems created by drugs instead of just lying to them and telling them that using them will ultimately ruin there life...
If you tell a kid that smoking pot will ruin his life, then he smokes, realizes it won't ruin his life, the kids going to think "Well gee, what other drugs was I lied to about..." That is why marijuana is a gateway drug.
If we just educated them instead of lying to them then maybe we'd have fewer drug abusers.
This user is no longer registered.
MoeJoe
Are you going to run for president anytime soon? I'd vote for you!!
Fentro
It's time to, if only Marijuana - other drugs are a bit too strong and can kill - no one is EVER going to OD on weed. Our national hypocrisy is, as David Shuster on MSNBC says, "wrong." This issue should be voted on in a national referendum (or, remove the Federal law and let states vote on it). Look in the mirror, America, and stop lying to yourself. You like to get high, and done in moderation, there's NOTHING WRONG WITH IT! Our ancestors did through our entire history. It's logical, and safe than alcohol.It hasn't hurt folks like Richard Branson, Michael Phelps, Paul McCartney, and Bill Gates, so let's tell the meddlesome conservatives to "stop talking about that which you have no experience with".
C'mon Baby, Light My Fire!
Peace
http://fentrosphere.blogspot.com
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.