Jeffrey Miron on Drugs

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Over the past two years, drug violence in Mexico has become a fixture of the daily news. Some of this violence pits drug cartels against one another; some involves confrontations between law enforcement and traffickers.

Recent estimates suggest thousands have lost their lives in this "war on drugs."

The U.S. and Mexican responses to this violence have been predictable: more troops and police, greater border controls and expanded enforcement of every kind. Escalation is the wrong response, however; drug prohibition is the cause of the violence.

Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead. - CNN.com/Jeffrey Miron

If you all recall, Miron spoke with former É big man, Ben Tan, about the war on drugs a few months back. It's pretty cool to see something like this on the front page of CNN.

Ron Paul Owns Baldwin on the Drug Issue

Gangs Responsible For 80% of Crimes?

Criminal gangs in the USA have swelled to an estimated 1 million members responsible for up to 80% of crimes in communities across the nation, according to a gang threat assessment compiled by federal officials.

The major findings in a report by the Justice Department's National Gang Intelligence Center, which has not been publicly released, conclude gangs are the "primary retail-level distributors of most illicit drugs" and several are "capable" of competing with major U.S.-based Mexican drug-trafficking organizations.

"A rising number of U.S.-based gangs are seemingly intent on developing working relationships" with U.S. and foreign drug-trafficking organizations and other criminal groups to "gain direct access to foreign sources of illicit drugs," the report concludes. - LewRockwell.com

As Spencer Hahn said, the real gangs are the FBI and the DEA.

Mexico: A Failed State?

Mexico is now in the midst of a vicious drug war. Police officers are being bribed and, especially near the United States border, gunned down. Kidnappings and extortion are common place. And, most alarming of all, a new Pentagon study concludes that Mexico is at risk of becoming a failed state. Defense planners liken the situation to that of Pakistan, where wholesale collapse of civil government is possible.

One center of the violence is Tijuana, where last year more than 600 people were killed in drug violence. Many were shot with assault rifles in the streets and left there to die. Some were killed in dance clubs in front of witnesses too scared to talk.

It may only be a matter of time before the drug war spills across the border and into the U.S. To meet that threat, Michael Chertoff, the outgoing secretary for Homeland Security, recently announced that the U.S. has a plan to "surge" civilian and possibly military law-enforcement personnel to the border should that be necessary. - Wall Street Journal

No more drug war!

Ben Tan's Radio Report on Drug War

Click here to listen: http://nesportsnews.com/drugwar.mp3 

Transcript:

Ben Tan: Government policies of the last decades has treated drug use as a crime. The office of national
drug control policy says in this year alone our government has spent more than $40
billion on the drug war. Every president since Nixon has declared support for punishing
drug users. Others, however, say that this persecution should end. Professor
Jeffrey Miron is Harvard University's senior economics lecturer and the author
of the 2004 book Drug War Crimes. Professor Miron says that the War on Drugs, for all
its good intentions, has actually lead to more malice.

Professor Miron: I think it's done enormous harm and very little good, if any. It contributes
to crime, it contributes to corruption, it costs substantial resources for prisons, police, and
prosecutors. It undermines civil liberties, it fosters terrorism and insurrection in other
countries and at best it has a modest impact on drug use. And further, it's not obvious
that reducing drug use is a necessarily always a good thing. Just as some people use
alcohol in ways that is perfectly fine for them and others, many people can use
drugs in ways that are harmless or even beneficial for themseleves without harming
others and so we shouldn't assume that reduced drug use is an appropriate goal.

Ben Tan: Professor Miron published his book in 2004 at a time when almost
1/2 million Americans were in prison for drug offensives. Randall Sheldon
is a professor of criminal justice at the University of Nevada in Los Vegas.
He sees the escalation of drug arrests since the 80s as a cause of jail
overcrowding.

Professor Sheldon: To explain either jail or prison overcrowding or both, you
first have to consider something very simple, very elementary: a jail or a
prison is overcrowded for one of two reasons. 1) Too many coming in the
front door and not enough leaving the back door. So what we've seen
since the early 1980s is roughly a five fold increase (500% increase) in
the nation's prisons and jails in terms of the rate of incarceration. For just
drug arrests alone, it is about 1100% increase in drug arrests. So we just
put two and two together. And most of these arrests are for small time
traffickers, possession. The biggest drug, of course, would be marijuana.
So without a doubt, this has been what is happening.

Tan: Opponents of the drug war say it has also caused a greater
issue: racial profiling. A government studied revealed that at the end of
2004, of the almost 250,000 drug offenders in state prisons, 45% were
black and 20% were hispanic. Professor Sheldon says this doesn't
reflect the amount of drug use among races.

Sheldon: Several organizations do surveys of people, both adults and
juveniles, on the incidence of their use of illegal drugs. And every one
of these surveys since they started doing them back in the 1980s
have shown that their is no significant difference between the races.
Some surveys show whites using these drugs more often than
either African Americans or Latinos. Police departments have
admitted that "yeah we've gone into these neighborhoods (meaning
African American or Hispanic) because they are easier to find. There
is easier to find drug use going on in there 'cause they are done
mostly out on the streets, in the alleys and so forth. Whereas in
the suburbs, they are being used behind clothes doors, in people's
backyards, and even businesses and college fraternaties and sororities
and dormitories. That's what we have.

Tan: Opponents of the drug war also cite the toll it takes on the
government's budget. Professor Miron explains how an end to drug
prohibition could benefit the nation's financial situation.

Miron: We currently spend something like $35, 40 billion dollars a year
on the arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of people on drug
related charges. So we would say that those are sources for other uses
if we were to legalize drugs. We also are not collecting tax revenues
(the taxes that would presumably be levied on legal drugs) and so that
means taxes on other things have to be higher for any given level of
goverment expenditure. So the budgetary situation for the U.S overall
would improve by somewhere between $50 and 70 billion dollars if
we were to legalize and tax...tax and regulate the currently illegal
drugs. It's not going to fundamentally change anything about the current
financial crisis or anything like that. It's not going to fundamentally change
the overall path of the U.S economy, but it's not trivial either. There are
many government programs which are far smaller than $50 billion or 70
billion dollars a year so it would make a noticable difference. In
addition to all these other consequences that don't show up in the
government budgets like reduced crime.

Tan: Despite all the arguments against drug prohibiton, the cause of these
drug war opponents may seem lost in today's political climate. After all
how else can the government send the message that drugs are dangerous?
Professor Miron has a suggestion...

Miron: I think the best we can do with respect to drugs is to have them
be legal and then possibly, although not necessarily but possibly, have
relatively mild policies in a legal environment in an attempt to nudge
people against the most irresponsible uses of drugs. One example, which
is almost certainly desirable, would be analogous to drunk driving laws
would be driving under the influence of marijuana or heroin or anything
else. Another type of policy that most countries use in conjunction
with alcohol is minimum purchase ages. So that would certainly be
thinkable, defensable, plausible in the case of legalized drugs.

Tan: Such reform may seem radical next to the policies of the Republicans
and Democrats. Even the reform Question 2 on the Massachusetts
Ballot may bring is a far cry from a nation in which all drugs are legal.
In 2005, a goverment survery said that more than 100 million Americans
twelve and over have used an illicit substance at least once. The
dangerous consequences of drug use can not be denied. A 2000
American Medical Association study says that 17 million Americans
died from illicit drug use that year. How will America's future leader
address the problem? Republican Presidential candidate Senator
John McCain is a strong supporter of the war on drugs. On the other
hand, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama supports
rehab rather than prison for first time non-violent offenders. This is
still a far cry from the libertarian view that all drug use should
be legal. So how should government approach the drug problem?
The writer H.L Mencken once said "For every complex problem
there is an easy answer and it is wrong." For You Are Here
this is Ben Tan.

Fascinating Video

My Boy Jim

Simply the best.

Marijuana Decriminalization Proposed!

The U.S. should stop arresting responsible marijuana users, Rep. Barney Frank said Wednesday, announcing a proposal to end federal penalties for Americans carrying fewer than 100 grams, almost a quarter-pound, of the substance.

Current laws targeting marijuana users place undue burdens on law enforcement resources, punish ill Americans whose doctors have prescribed the substance and unfairly affect African-Americans, Frank said, flanked by legislators and representatives from advocacy groups.

"The vast amount of human activity ought to be none of the government's business," Frank said during a Capitol Hill news conference. "I don't think it is the government's business to tell you how to spend your leisure time." - CNN

As much as I hate your politics, Barney, you have done good here. Marijuana decriminalization, as I've said before, is a human right.

LEAP

Great points made here.

What If There Wasn't a War on Drugs?

I'll admit, this is a crappy "what if?" due to poor planning and procrastination lol. However, I think the first half, the background and the premise is educational. So, basically discard the "what if?" for now.

In the 1960s, recreational drug use had reached an all time high among Americans. Drug abuse was and still is considered a grave danger in American society; and during this tumultuous time period adolescents found a distinct pleasure in intoxicating themselves as a form of rebellion and escape. The youth’s opponents: parents, teachers, basically all forms of authority viewed this behavior as a severe threat to traditional morals and attitudes, but more importantly the very future of America. The big question became: how do we stop our citizens, children especially, from doing drugs? Some said more treatment and rehabilitation programs. Others wanted stricter law enforcement. At the time, many thought problems with dangerous drugs was a new issue. In fact, it was the contrary. Drug use and its prohibition had been a prevalent issue in the United States for over a century.
Prohibitionist laws first sprouted up towards the end of the nineteenth century. These early laws were at the local and state levels. They did not completely prohibit the use of any modern, illicit drugs; however they did place restrictions on the commerce of marijuana, opium, and cocaine. According to Southern California Judge James P. Gray, they were “…fundamentally racist laws aimed at perceived threats to white women from drug usage by black, Mexican, and Chinese men, respectively.” These laws implied that under the influence of illicit substances, these minorities would attack women.
The first real prohibitionist law to tackle illicit drugs was the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. During this time period cocaine and morphine were used in patent medicines, substances made to cure practically every ailment a person had. As a result, drug addiction became widespread. The Pure Food and Drug Act did not criminalize any of the aforementioned drugs, but now every medication on the market was accompanied by a label describing its contents. Following the act, amendments were released, stating that the labels must inform the consumer about the power of the substances. Subsequently, less people purchased these products. The Pure Food and Drug Act clearly prevented consumers from taking certain dangerous drugs and becoming addicts. However, there were still a large amount of people who were already addicts. 1919’s Webb v. United States the Supreme Court made matters worse for addicts. Judge James P. Gray claims, “…that it was illegal for doctors to dispense prescription drugs to alleviate the symptoms of narcotics withdrawal…” Gray believes this is the beginning of the Drug Prohibition that still exists today. Following the decision, people (mostly addicts) committed crimes to get a hold of the drugs, because they could no longer be prescribed them. As a result, a black market emerged, which meant that drugs were more expensive and more harmful than ever before.
Perhaps the biggest prohibition was the prohibition of alcohol by the Eighteenth Amendment on January 16, 1920. It lasted until 1933, when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed it. During this era, crime skyrocketed in the United States. In these years, there was an increase of over ten million dollars in federal spending on law enforcement and an increase in federal prison inmates by 9,000. Two-thirds of these inmates were arrested for mere alcohol and drug offenses. Another important prohibition was the prohibition of Marijuana. Just like the earlier drug laws, this was heavily associated with racism. In the 1920s, America was witnessing countless Mexicans immigrate into the country. With them came horror stories of violent outbursts due to marijuana consumption. These tales were untrue and created a great racial stereotype of Mexicans.
Harry J. Angslinger, commissioner of the United States Bureau of Narcotics, was an adamant crusader for the prohibition of Marijuana. Anslinger should be held responsible for people being uneducated about drugs. His Bureau of Narcotics was closely associated with the production of the 1936 film Reefer Madness, which popularized ridiculous urban legends about Marijuana and its users. For example, an infamous line from the film states, “one puff of pot can lead clean-cut teenagers down the road to insanity, criminality, and death.” Unfortunately, these tactics actually worked. Numerous states passed laws prohibiting marijuana. This eventually culminated with Congress’ passing of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. This piece of legislation did not actually prohibit the drug. Instead, it required those who prescribe, sell, grow, import, or manufacture it to pay a licensing fee. However, this essentially wiped out its market. There was a tax of $100 per ounce for any unlicensed transactions with the drug.
In the decades that followed, the presidents of the United States passed “get tough” laws, which only had detrimental effects on society. With these laws, all illegal substances were placed in the same category and there were unsurprisingly little to no positive results. Subsequently, Congress passed even stricter laws. For example, the Boggs Act of 1951 and the Narcotics Control Act of 1956 increased the sentencing for any illicit drug offense. During the 1960s, Marijuana use became more acceptable, and as a result an increasing amount of adolescents began using the substance, amongst other illicit substances such as LSD, which also became widely popular during this decade. President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon made it his mission to end drug abuse amongst Americans, particularly the youth. He called this ambitious plan the War on Drugs, becoming the first and only U.S. president to formally wage a “War on Drugs.” Now, we are over thirty years into this Drug War and the big question is: has it been successful? Drug abuse and trafficking still exist; people still commit petty crimes to attain drugs and billions of dollars are spent each year on this war. If the War on Drugs had never been created, millions of non-violent drug users could walk freely, billions of tax dollars would not be flushed down the drain, there would be less crime, therefore less prisons, and overall America would be freer.
On June 17, 1971, United States President Richard M. Nixon, at a press conference, declared drug abuse as “public enemy number one.” This was the official beginning of the current War on Drugs. Soon, the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP) was created. It was headed by Dr. Jerome Jaffe, a leading Methadone treatment Specialist. It should be noted that from the beginning of the drug war up until the present, only during Nixon’s presidency was the funding for treatment greater than the funding for law enforcement. In July of 1973, Nixon formed his “super agency” the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA was created to effectively solve every aspect of the drug issue. It was made up of members of the CIA, BNDD, and the ODALE. Despite the DEA’s great efforts, drug abuse remained a constant problem in America.
Along with drug use increasing, so did federal prisons to incarcerate the drug offenders. Many critics of the drug war call this a “Prison-Industrial Complex.” Justice William A. Newsom made the following comments:
“One result of the attempt to control drug use with heavy penalties is, of course, an increase in the price of drugs, which assures an increase in crime both random and organized. Viewed in this context, the war on drugs, besides being laughably inept and already visibly lost, is in fact the driving force behind serious crime.
From shoplifting to prostitution, through burglary and armed robbery on up the scale to murder, the great majority of serious crimes in California are drug-related; that is to say caused not by the perpetrator’s ingestion of drugs, but by his or her need to obtain the large amounts of money necessary to purchase drugs on the street for personal use.”

In 1973, the same year of the formation of the DEA, The United States contained 330,400 state and federal prisons. In ten years that number doubled; in twenty years it had more than doubled again, reaching 1,408,685 prisons. According to Judge James P. Gray, “By June 30, 1996, the number of men and women incarcerated in the United States in both the state and federal systems was 1,630,940, and by the end of 1998 the number was 1.8 million.” Strangely, during this time period, crime had decreased and yet drug arrests had increased. Many of these incarcerations could be attributed to the inclusion of mandatory minimum sentences.
On October 27, 1986, United States President Ronald Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Under this act, $1.7 billion was spent to combat the drug epidemic, $87 million for the construction of more prisons, $200 million for drug education, and $241 million for treatment. However, the act’s most controversial and certainly most substantial portion was the formation of mandatory minimum sentences. This severely increased the penalties for drug offenses, often just for the simple possession of illicit drugs. For example, if one was arrested for possession of five kilograms of cocaine or just one kilogram of heroin, he or she received at least ten years imprisonment. At the time, the crack epidemic had just surfaced, and as a result laws against the drug were far more stringent. For example, if a person was arrested for selling five grams of crack they automatically received five years in prison as a mandatory sentence. These mandatory minimum sentences received harsh criticism because the sentences for crack were far greater than those for cocaine. Critics say this causes a massive racial disparity in the prison population. In fact, in May of 1995 a report was released by The United States Sentencing Commission, stating that there was a racial disparity between crack and cocaine sentencing. The Commission wanted to erase the discrepancy as much as possible; unfortunately Congress did not agree and for the first time in history they overrode the Commission’s proposal. 1988’s Anti-Drug Abuse Act brought even stricter law enforcement for drugs. According to Judge James P. Gray, “… [it] further expanded federal offenses to include the distribution of drugs within one hundred feet of playgrounds, parks, youth centers, swimming pools, and video arcades.”
In 1989, President George Bush created the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Bush made William Bennett the leader of the ONDCP. As “Drug Czar” he created a plan of “denormaliztaion.” Essentially his mission was to make drug use socially taboo. Under Bennett’s leadership, federal spending for law enforcement and treatment increased greatly. Unsurprisingly, treatment was less than one-third of the total budget. One year later, Bush added $1.2 billion to the War on Drugs’ budget, which included a 50% rise in military spending. The ONDCP’s budget has always been an issue amongst drug war critics. Judge Gray claims,
“As of fiscal year 1999, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, by itself, was overseeing a federal drug control budget of $17.8 billion ( in nine separate appropriations bills), plus an additional $1 billion for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, $143.5 million for the Drug-Free Communities Program, and $184 million for the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program. That budget was increased again to $19.2 billion for fiscal year 2000….It is up to us as caring citizens, taxpayers, and voters to make the government move forward to a more rational, workable, and as good fortune would have it, vastly less expensive national drug policy.”

The 1990s brought even stricter laws for drug offenses. Some major examples include the Crime Bill of 1994, which in some cases instituted capital punishment for drug dealing; mandatory sentences ranged from twenty years to life. 1998’s Higher Education Act determined that those convicted of marijuana possession automatically lose federal aid for college. What it is even more disturbing, is the fact that this form of ineligibility does not exist for worse offenses, such as rape, robbery, or manslaughter. It is apparent that under our current drug policy we are creating overcrowded prisons. Judge Gray makes this excellent point:
“…about 18 million Americans used marijuana at least once during the year 1997…During that same year, the United States had about 1.7 million people behind bars under badly overcrowded conditions. Since it is immediately obvious that we cannot put 18 million people in jail, even if we were to agree that this was a good idea, why are we following this course? Yet people who did nothing but smoke some marijuana are sent to state prison every day to serve years of time. How can that happen?”

In short, the War on Drugs has been a massive failure on various levels. Unfortunately, it still exists today, and in fact costs more than it ever has: over twenty-two billion dollars, just this year alone. Is it really worth that much money? Can this war be won? Well, the answers to those questions are not facts, of course. Although, if one observes the drug war from its inception in 1971 up until the present, it is clear that the goals President Richard Nixon sent out to achieve have not been won and the overall drug problem in America has steadily become worse. With each decade, stricter laws have been made, more prisons have been built, and drugs have always been available. With sufficient education, any reasonable person should be able to see why our drug policy deeply needs reformation. If this War on Drugs had never existed the United States would be a much better place; there would be less criminals, less prisoners, less taxes, and even less drug use.
Supposedly, the War on Drugs’ primary aim was ending drug use in America. Unfortunately, over the years we have realized there is little to no chance that this will occur. However, we can always reduce the amount of people taking drugs. Instead of focusing our energy on locking up drug offenders (mostly non-violent drug users) we could spend the money on better treatment and education. People would be more informed about the dangers of drugs and this most likely would prevent some from using them. If there was no prohibition of drugs, the money the federal government spends on law enforcement could be used to fund more rehabilitation and more education. As a result, there would be less Americans arrested each year. One of the biggest criticisms of the drug war is the rise of prisons being built to house millions of drug offenders. Overtime, the amount of prisons increased and of course this increased federal government spending, therefore, increasing taxes. This would no longer be an issue, because the amount of prisoners would decrease, therefore the amount of prisons would also decrease.
Without the War on Drugs many pieces of legislation that strengthened law enforcement would no longer exist. A major example is the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which created the extremely detrimental mandatory minimum sentences. To this day these sentences are applied to many incarcerations for drug offenses. If this act had never been passed and as a result these mandatory minimum sentences did not exist, then countless drug sentences would be severely reduced. It should also be noted that the racial disparity in the prison population would vanish, because there would be no difference in the sentencing for crack and cocaine. Another example is the Higher Education Act of 1998, which disqualified youths from getting federal aid for college if they were convicted of marijuana possession. Perhaps, if this act had not been passed, then more youths could attend college and receive a higher education.
In conclusion, the War on Drugs, like every form of prohibition does not work. There are countless problems with our drug policy in America. Once again the main flaws are the imprisonment of non-violent drug users, the overcrowding of prisons, and the overall expense of the drug war’s budget. There are very little positive effects of this system, but there are obviously many negative effects. Drug use has not decreased, crime has not been prevented, in fact the opposite, the drug war secures organized crime. As long as these substances are illegal, there will always be a black market available. Essentially, the United States would be a far greater place if there was not a drug war. Americans need to realize how costly this war is, both financially and emotionally. It is evident, that many of our citizens, mainly parents, are in favor of the drug war because they do not want their children taking drugs. Well, we are thirty-seven years into this war and more drugs are available than ever before; a change is long overdue.

Everything got screwed up when I tried to copy the resources, so I just decided not to include them. If anybody wants to know what they are just ask me. I used Judge James P. Gray's Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It for the most part.

The So-Called Drug War Facts

First, the Drug War is totally ineffective. It has failed to reduce overall
use of illegal drugs or even availability. Narcotics were no more prevalent before Prohibition than now, and cocaine is more widespread.

And it's easy to see that drug laws actually cause more harm than good:

(1) by increasing the price, forcing users to steal to pay for their habits.
It is estimated that 40% of property crimes are committed by drug users -- 4 million crimes per year; $7.5 billion in stolen property.

(2) Prohibition creates stronger and more dangerous drugs. Seen any white lightning lately? Crack cocaine and many designer drugs would not even exist without Prohibition.

(3) by criminalizing use of drugs, we create criminals. Once a person is labeled a criminal, why not commit other crimes? Once that threshold is crossed, it's hard to come back.

(4) normal jobs don't pay enough, so we discourage people from working. This especially affects young people who find role models in punks wearing gold jewelry, leaning against their Mercedes, and smearing at any kid who takes a minimum wage job. And why should a child aspire to anything else when he is given the opportunity to make thousands of dollars a week?

(5) drug-related disputes are removed from the legal system, thus creating a context of violence.

(6) the black market creates jobs -- for professional criminals. - Sharon Harris from Advocates for Self-Government

You can never get enough drug war news, can you?

American Drug War: The Last White Hope

This is just a trailer of Kevin Booth's groundbreaking documentary on our Drug War; I highly recommend everyone to check it out.