Why US Drug Policy Won't Change After 40 Years of Failure

Last week marked the 40th anniversary of the start of our "War on Drugs," which was initiated by former President Richard Nixon in 1971. That was a crazy time in US history; the end of our involvement in Vietnam, the whirlwind of a counterculture of music and drugs, and the beginning of a shift in our way of thinking and living as Americans. Nixon saw the increase in the widespread use of drugs, and decided it was a bad thing for America.

Unfortunately, 40 years and many policies later, millions of Americans are still using drugs, if somewhat differently than they were in 1971. DHS points to historic highs in the sizes and number of drug seizures at our borders and ports of entry as a sign that we're winning the war. International observers look at the situation in places like Mexico and our continuing demand is evidence that we're losing the war. The Global Commission on Drug Policy, which includes former presidents of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Switzerland, issued a report a couple of weeks ago emphasizing that current anti-drug strategies are failing.

The report said that a decades-long strategy of outlawing drugs and jailing drug users while battling cartels that control the trade has not worked. It also recommended that governments experiment with the legal regulation of drugs, especially cannabis, referring to the success in countries such as Portugal, Switzerland and the Netherlands where drug consumption had been reduced. But the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy said in a statement that making drugs more available would make it harder to keep communities healthy and safe. 

In my humble opinion, there are two key components of current US drug policy that are keeping it on these rails from which it won't deviate: morality and history.

Governments around the world have never shied away from legislating morality to their people, and the US is definitely no exception. Various kinds of drugs have been used by people around the world for thousands of years and for dozens of reasons, but only in the last few decades have many of them become illegal in the US. Cocaine became illegal (for non-medical purposes) in 1914, heroin in 1924, marijuana in 1937, and precursor chemicals and equipment for making methamphetamine in 1983. Marijuana and cocaine were initially thought to cause crazed rape and killing sprees in blacks and Mexicans.

Of course, we now understand that the abuse (and sometimes the one-time use) of certain illegal drugs can be deadly, which gives US lawmakers the impetus to maintain current drug policy. However, very strong arguments can be made that the effects of marijuana on the body are no worse than those of alcohol or tobacco. We know that alcoholics can die from cirrhosis and smokers can die from lung cancer or emphysema. Yet, alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking are considered socially acceptable, and therefore laws aren't passed (other than age restrictions) to emphasize the moral underpinnings of their use. The US government is concerned that changing drug policy to a more liberal form would flood the market with these drugs and cause a spike in drug use among adults and encourage experimentation in children. There is, of course, no way to test this theory, which makes it all speculative. So, the US government is flying the flag of caution, maintaining its stance that all drug use is dangerous, immoral, and therefore should remain illegal.

The second component I mentioned earlier is history. What I mean by that is, the US government has a history of maintaining policies for decades that are obviously not working. For example (and with this I have extensive academic and personal knowledge), the embargo against Cuba. Cuba has been a communist state for half a century, and the US government has maintained an embargo against the island nation for roughly the same amount time. The goal was to get Fidel Castro to embrace democracy, free speech, elections, freedom of the press, etc. In over fifty years, not much in Cuba has changed. Cubans who were pro-embargo hardliners for decades have even started saying, you know, maybe this embargo thing isn't working out. Yet, the embargo persists.

In 1979, the US government created the State Sponsor of Terrorism list. The idea was to impose strict sanctions on countries on the list in the hopes they would, well, stop sponsoring terrorism. Only a handful of countries made the list, and have been added and removed at various times. Iran came on in 1984, Syria at the list's inception in 1979, and North Korea and Libya were only removed in the last few years. Yet, Iran is still sending Hizballah to do its dirty work, and Syria is still exporting some mean and nasty terrorists. Oddly enough, Cuba remains on the list, although there haven't been any examples of the Cuban government funding any sort of terrorist act in at least a dozen years. Yet, the list remains.

Morality and history aside, I think the US government is concerned that if it embraces the need for a change in drug policy, it would be seen as a sign of weakness. It might be perceived as an acknowledgment that the billions of dollars spent on drug enforcement and interdiction were wasted. Even worse, it could be seen as a concession to drug traffickers, that they're the ones winning the war and not the "good guys."

Even harder for the US government to acknowledge would be the fact that the "War on Drugs" cannot be solved by a mere shift in policy; it can only be won through a shift in American culture. Well-intentioned politicians - and Americans in general - really want to make a difference and feel like they're doing something to stop drug abuse and drug trafficking. Right now, the easiest way to do something tangible and publicly visible is to maintain a policy of interdiction, or go after the supply.

Going after the demand - while it's the ultimate solution - is not only incredibly challenging, but it might just be impossible. Many parents spent countless hours educating their children about the dangers of using drugs, and pray they'll "just say no" if offered a joint by a dealer after school. But there are also many parents who are users themselves, and their children have an uphill battle to fight to get out of that drug-filled environment.

Even more insidious is the morally- and societally-acceptable use (and often abuse) of prescription drugs. Not only is it easy to get hooked on sleeping pills and anti-anxiety medication, but they're perfectly legal to use. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, prescription opioid (drugs based on opium) overdose deaths are increasing, primarily because the users took the drugs non-medically, other than as prescribed, or in combination with other drugs and/or alcohol. Some of these include codeine, fentanyl (Duragesic, Actiq), hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), morphine (MS Contin), oxycodone (OxyContin), pentazocine (Talwin), dextropropoxyphene (Darvon), methadone (Dolophine), and hydrocodone combinations (Vicodin, Lortab, and Lorcet).

It's painful for me to say that I don't see an answer, either on the horizon or farther down the road. US drug policy isn't going to change because it's the only way our government knows how to fight drug use. They're just not capable of changing an entire country's culture, or American society's way of looking at drug use - both illegal and prescription. By maintaining course and sticking to its guns, the US government believes it's being steadfast and not compromising American values. Yes, DHS, its components, and state and local law enforcement agencies across the country are stopping some drugs from reaching users, but it's only a small percentage of what is getting out there. Only when we take a hard look at ourselves, what our country is becoming, and what US drug demand is inciting in Mexico and elsewhere can US drug policy truly change in a way that will actually make a difference.

Comments

[Slow POKEY]

Is there another solution then my two ideas [shoot drug users or legalize drugs].
Am I just not thinking out side the box.

[Bill]

The US has never seriously tried to curtail the demand, other than to stipulate drugs are illegal and claim there is a "war on drugs" in an effort to persuade Americans not to use them. I agree with you, curtailing demand is virtually impossible. On the supply side, the US has not made much impact either. Sure interdiction on the borders and some efforts in Columbia have helped over the years. But no serious dent has ever been made on the demand or supply side. Is it now a $40 billion/year business from Latin America through Mexico to the US? It makes one wonder if an all out, well-coordinated effort with our allies would yield results. It would have to be an effort like we've never undertaken before and of course in consort with several Latin American countries. It would entail refocusing resources from Afghanistan/Pakistan to Latin America. The recent novel The Cobra by Frederick Forsythe intelligently outlines one such effort. If what you say is true, that the DTOs are intent on increasing their activity in the US, then before it is too late it is time to take the battle directly to the source of the problem. With some work, Forsythe's plan is plausible.

[Slow POKEY]

How do you persuade people not to use drugs, with out shooting them, we all know what happens when a person starts smelling Cocaine on a regular bases yet people still do it. There is a dirty side to the drug world that isn't present in the alcohol world. I understand not every girl that smells Cocaine turns into a Crack whore, but very few who drink Whiskey turn in to skid row bums. Legalizing drugs doesn't seem like a good idea but I know the California pot heads are all for it. As for a joint effort with our Latin American neighbors corrupted I'm all for it, how much cooperation we get from them is questionable, but we are making a serious effort on the intelligence front and that's a good thing. Basically I'm lost in what to do.

[P]

We need to recognize that a significant number of Americans want these drugs, are willing to use them, and don't consider the consequences of drug use to be too serious. Right or wrong - that is their outlook. Since we claim to be a free society ... the solution should be to end the prohibition.

We need to legalize drugs. And this would allow state and federal taxes to be collected on the sales.

It's important to note that "drug legalization" does not necessarily mean a blanket legalization for all drugs. Some drugs could be allowed for distribution, while others remain illegal. Likewise, it is not necessary to legalize drug use at all levels in our society. There's no reason we can't go the route of Holland and allow drug use at specific establishments e.g. bars could apply for licenses to also sell drugs, and people could use them in selected areas of the building.

I don't believe that our society is going to collapse into an avalanche of jobless junkies just because we legalize drugs. People aren't that stupid. A few maybe, but most people will apply common sense.

Deal with it, enact new laws, and move on.

P.

[anonymous_hero]

If we legalize drugs on the Federal level will I still be forced to support drug users through Medicaid and welfare? I am all for abolishing laws which the fed gov has no authority to enact like the drug laws, but do it across the board based on principle (end gun laws too) and don't force me to pay for the bigger mess it will cause.

[Steve M.]

But the War on Drugs hasn't failed from the perspective of those who profit from it, and they are the ones who are able to influence policy.

I am a capitalist, but there are a few things that are dangerous when set up "for profit". War and prisons are two of them.

[Beltonwall]

There are many other alternatives to legalization in the USA.

For example, we could offer state sponsored rehab although Rush Limbaugh (himself a drug addict) would never let the GOP do this.

Or, we could educate more as to the dangers of drug use.

Yet, Americans seem to think that legalization is the only alternative. Instant gratification at all costs?

For those who wish to legalize drugs I wish to point to the historical record. In the early 19th century China tried to enforce it's ban on opium. The British then fought a war for the right to sell opium in China. The British won and as a result they got Hong Kong. This was their base for drug running for at least 60 years.

By 1900, about 30% of the Chinese population was addicted to drugs. Today, 100 years later, the average wage in China is under $1/day.

This is what the historical record states, not my opinion.

[Cory]

I think to say we should legalize drugs is (excuse my frankness) ignorant at best.

If it was simply "legalize drugs" then we wouldn't have the addiction problem that we have in this country. Cocaine isn't used because of some health benefit, it is used because of the high, meth isn't used because of the health benefits, it is used because of the high. The list goes on and on.

The idea that somebody would even have the thought of legalizing meth is really ignorant. Have you ever seen how meth is cooked? Have you ever walked into a meth house? Have you ever been around a meth lab? These places can and often times blow up, so we should legalize it?? As a law enforcement officer in the western states meth is really bad here and the idea that somebody would even think to legalize it is idiotic to me.

People in some degree have an argument with marijuana, but not much in my mind, but outside of marijuana there is ZERO argument for the other drugs.

I agree with Beltonwall in that Americans are an instant gratification at all costs society. Americans have this idea that legalization is the only answer no matter what.