How the Drug War Ended

Thoughts on the 40th anniversary of the War on Drugs.

Last week marked the end of four decades of drug wars first unleashed under President Richard Nixon. The event was well publicized, with parades and pronouncements on all sides. But nothing struck me quite like a recent essay by Daniel Lende at his blog site, Neuroanthropology.

For anthropologist Daniel Lende, the tipping point was a clutch of superb—and superbly horrifying—photographs of drug war victims in Mexico. The old, the young, the innocent. Nothing but blood and death and dying. “Despite years of living in Colombia,” Lende writes, “I’d never really come face-to-face with the costs of the drug war there.” And, up until a few weeks ago, he had been “the good scientist, waiting for more evidence, and the good anthropologist, waiting for something that makes better sense.”

If anything is in short supply in the never-ending, no endpoint, no endgame war, it’s better sense, not bullets. These were the pictures, and there was no way of making the pictures theoretical.  And one photo in particular—a dead grandmother, huddled in a protective embrace meant to shield her two dead grandchildren—finished it off for Lende. “We can’t squirm away, we can’t simply forget or say it’s not so bad. It is that bad. These photos show it.”

It’s all too easy to blame it on drug thugs, so Lende doesn’t bother. Besides, “for too many years, the Mexican government treated drug trafficking like just another corruption, manageable and profitable for those in power. And now the violence has hit as a storm of torture, death, and gruesome display.”

Do we really believe it can’t happen here? U.S. government officials are, as Lende writes, supposedly built from sterner stuff. “Their corruption is not easy money and institutional decay. It’s the sheer rigidity of their approach—an approach of annihilation and denial eerily reminiscent of drug users themselves. It is tyrannical more than puritanical. A war can never be lost, no matter the cost, even if the enemy (demand) comes from our own people.”

Lende is not in favor of legalization—far from it.  “Releasing drugs to the unfettered powers of the capitalist market is not a good option. If they can’t even handle mortgages, what would happen with drugs?” Besides, it’s obvious enough that alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs cause enough mayhem as legal drugs.

So, what to do? We can’t go forward, and we can’t go back. Or so it sometimes seems. Lende offers up four suggestions; small ways of making improvements at the margin, where such improvements often start.

--Fairness in drug regulation. Similar drugs should be treated in similar ways. Witness the entanglement the criminal justice system got itself into with huge sentencing disparities between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine; disparities that amounted to racial profiling.

--A focus on consequences rather than simple possession. For example, alcohol is legal, but not drunk driving. “Similar policies that target harmful behaviors users commit are an utter necessity.”

--Mandated restitution and treatment, rather than jail. Lende argues that drug courts can help provide “the long-term protection of the community and the rehabilitation of individuals found to commit acts in counter to commonly established laws.”

--An emphasis on small, immediate costs to drug abusers: “fines for possession, obliging users to show up in court and face social judgment… and one or two day jail sentences are all ways to generate change using a criminal justice approach.”

But is there really any evidence that social interventions of the kind Lende champions can really make a difference? As it happens, yes. Consider smoking. Taxes, warning labels, and social changes in tolerance for smoking have all had a direct effect.

Full Disclosure: Daniel Lende used "The Chemical Carousel," my book about addiction, in one of his anthropology classes at the University of Notre Dame, although we both made zero money out of the deal. He's now an Associate Professor in Anthropology at the University of South Florida. I also fully disclose that he’s a great guy and has proven to me that this is not your mother’s anthropology anymore. It’s a terrific essay. Read it in full here.

Photo Credit:  www.presstv.ir

Drug Wars Increase Drug Violence

 Homicides rise with anti-drug expenditures.

In a large review of studies evaluating the association between drug law enforcement and violence, the Vancouver-based International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (ICSDP) concluded that “the existing scientific evidence strongly suggests that drug prohibition likely contributes to drug market violence and higher homicide rates. On the basis of these findings, it is reasonable to infer that increasingly sophisticated methods of disrupting drug distribution networks may increase levels of drug-related violence.”

This finding is either self-evident or counterintuitive, depending upon your point of view. But it is entirely consistent with several historical examples, most notably the breakup of the Cali and Medellin cartels in Columbia during the 1990s. “The destruction of the cartels’ cocaine duopoly,” says the report, “was followed by the emergence of a fractured network of smaller cocaine-trafficking cartels that increasingly used violence to protect and increase their market share.”

In its review of available English language studies focusing on the association between drug enforcement and violence, the ICSDP looked at “longitudinal analyses involving up to six years of prospective follow-up, multilevel regression analyses, qualitative analyses, and mathematical predictive models.” The result? “Contrary to our primary hypothesis, among studies that employed statistical analyses of real world data, 82% found a significant positive association between drug law enforcement and violence.” 

According to Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, who is quoted in the report: “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.”

The drug policy group estimates that the worldwide illicit drug trade adds up to as much as $320 billion annually. Latin America is still the world’s leading supplier of marijuana and cocaine, but it has also become a major player in the opium and heroin trade. Afghanistan and West Africa are also plagued with serious political and social instability and violence due to drug traffic.

In light of the continuing economic downturn, it seems pertinent to note that the study estimates total U.S. drug law enforcement expenditures at about $15 billion a year for roughly the past 15 years. During that period, illegal drugs “have become cheaper and drug purity has increased, while rates of use have not markedly changed.” As an example, the report points to the “startling increase in heroin purity” from 1980 to 1999, when the Drug War was in full swing, and contrasts that trend with the “equally startling drop in price over the same period.”

The ICSDP is a recently-formed multinational network of scientists, health practitioners, and academics who seek to move the focus on drugs from law enforcement to harm reduction through “evidence-based drug policy guidelines and research collaborations with scientists and institutions across continents and disciplines.” Among its members are Michel D. Kazatchkine, executive director of The Global Fund to Fight Aids, TB and Malaria; Dr. David Nutt, a professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College, London, who was recently dismissed as a drug adviser by the British government for his anti-drug war views; and Dr. Julio Montaner, president of the International AIDS Society.

The report, like all such summary studies, is open to dispute by scholars and scientists on the grounds of statistical methodology, but to date it serves as additional evidence for the proposition that federal drug control officials must seek alternative regulatory models--or risk being responsible for helping to lower price, increase supply, and foment a truly appalling level of homicidal violence in their efforts to interdict drug traffic and incarcerate users. 

Drug wars never work. The report from the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy is another reminder that drug wars intrinsically raise the level of violence in the countries and the communities where they are quixotically waged.

Graphics Credit: http://www.icsdp.org/

Marijuana Q & A

My interview with AllTreatment Blog.

Denny Chapin, Managing Editor of AllTreatment.com, was recently invited to participate in an extended debate over marijuana withdrawal at the Drug WarRant blog site. I followed that debate with interest, due to the unusually high volume of responses to my own post on that subject.

Now Denny has kindly provided me the opportunity to offer my own views on a set of questions about cannabis use and cannabis dependency. The complete interview can be read at the AllTreatment site HERE.

Photo credit: http://www.medicalmarijuana.co.cc

Pot Advocates Overreach Themselves

L.A. set to close most marijuana dispensaries.

Medical marijuana advocates in Los Angeles appear to have overreached themselves, angering the City Council by establishing more than a thousand medical marijuana dispensaries in commercial and residential neighborhoods around the city.

According to a report by Jennifer Steinhauer in the New York Times, a board member for the neighborhood council in Studio City called the 13 dispensaries in her 3.5 square miles-neighborhood “unbelievable.”

The City Council struck back hard on Tuesday, passing a city ordinance that would “shutter the majority of the nearly 1,000 medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles and make the use of marijuana in the remaining outlets illegal,” according to the New York Times article. Claiming that Los Angeles now had more marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks outlets, Councilman Ed Reyes, chairman of the planning and land-use management committee, called the situation “out of control.”

Two years ago, Los Angeles imposed a moratorium on the establishment of new dispensaries, pending further study. But medical marijuana advocates flouted the temporary ban with impunity. According to the article, “The measure, which passed on a 9-to-3 vote, imposes strict rules on the location of the dispensaries — essentially moving them to more densely industrial zones — and restricts their hours. The ordinance, which city officials acknowledge would be difficult to enforce, will limit the number of dispensaries to 70….”

According to the Los Angeles Times :  “In a 9-3 vote, the Los Angeles City Council today gave its final approval to an ordinance that will shut down hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries and impose strict rules on the location and operation of the dispensaries that are allowed. The ordinance, which the council first began discussing more than 4 1/2 years ago, will cap the number of dispensaries at 70 but make an exception to allow all those that registered with the city in 2007 and have remained open. City officials believe that number is around 150.”

Photo Credit: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010085782_lapot18.html

The Portuguese Experiment

How has decriminalization fared in Portugal?

In 2001, amid lurid worldwide media coverage, Portugal made the decision to eliminate penalties for the personal use and possession of heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. Dire predictions were heard on all sides. According to the London Economist, this “ultraliberal legislation had set alarm bells ringing across Europe. The Portuguese were said to be fearful that holiday resorts would become dumping-grounds for drug tourists. Some conservative politicians denounced the decriminalization as 'pure lunacy'”.

Strictly speaking, Portugal did not legalize drugs. They decriminalized them—drug use and possession have been deemed administrative, not criminal, matters. Drug trafficking remains a criminal offense. Portugal is the only nation in the European Union (EU) to have made this blanket move, and Portuguese health officials have been at pains to point out that decriminalization in Portugal does not mean that drug use is in any way condoned or encouraged there.

Eight years down the road, how is this "lunatic" project faring? According to the Cato Institute, in a report issued earlier this year, pretty darn well. In “Drug Decriminalisation in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies,” Glenn Greenwald concludes that the project is in fact “a resounding success.” According to the Cato report, “decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, and that “sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage” have decreased dramatically.

Two years earlier, a study by the British Beckley Foundation, a member of the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), reported that the main changes in Portugal since decriminalization in 2001 were:

--Increased use of cannabis.

--Decreased use of heroin.

--Increased use of treatment options.

--Reduction in drug-related deaths.

The Economist, in its article entitled “Treating, Not Punishing,” concludes: “The evidence from Portugal since 2001 is that decriminalisation of drug use and possession has benefits and no harmful side-effects.”

No harmful side effects? How do we square that with the worldwide unending Drug War? I am tempted to suggest that either everybody is lying about the situation in Portugal, or else it is time to put the Drug War to bed. Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske has made clear his distaste for the term “drug war,” but has yet to solidly indicate the course that will take the country away from spending money on interdiction and prosecution and toward spending money on treatment, medical research, and harm reduction policies.

Graphics Credit: Cato Institute

addiction drugs

Marijuana Legalization Is Coming, Says Pollster

Nate Silver reads the numbers.

Last month, I missed this crucial article, penned by the inestimable Nate Silver. Silver, you may recall, is the numbers nerd who shamed all conventional pollsters during the run-up to the presidential election—and then proceeded to predict the Electoral College vote with perfect accuracy.

So when Nate Silver takes a hard look at statistics having to do with American sentiment about marijuana legalization, it behooves us to take his findings seriously. In an April 5 post called “Why Marijuana Legalization is Gaining Momentum,” on his FiveThirtyEight.com blog, Silver lays out the inevitable chronology.

“Back in February, we detailed how record numbers of Americans -- although certainly not yet a majority -- support the idea of legalizing marijuana,” Silver writes. “It turns out that there may be a simple explanation for this: an ever-increasing fraction of Americans have used pot at some point in their lifetimes.”

According to Silver’s number crunching, the peak pot year in anyone’s life is on or about age 20—duh—with most people reaching some sort of usage plateau between the ages of 30 and 50. The important point, Silver writes, has to do with the fraction of adults who have used. This is a dual-peaked distribution, “with one peak occurring among adults who are roughly age 50 now, and would have come of age in the 1970s, and another among adults in their early 20s. Generation X, meanwhile, in spite of its reputation for slackertude, were somewhat less eager consumers of pot than the generations either immediately preceding or proceeding them.”

Furthermore, reports of lifetime usage drop off precipitously after 55. “About half of 55-year-olds have used marijuana at some point in their lives, but only about 20 percent of 65-year-olds have.”

What does this tell us? While there is certainly not an exact correspondence between people who have smoked pot and people who support legalization, Silver ventures to guess that the link is fairly strong. What we have here, he argues, is a “fairly strong generation gap when it comes to pot legalization. As members of the Silent Generation are replaced in the electorate by younger voters, who are more likely to have either smoked marijuana themselves or been around those that have, support for legalization is likely to continue to gain momentum.”

Photo: Minnesotaindependent.com

addiction drugs medical marijuana

The Economics of Legalization

British study sees annual savings of $20 billion.

Legalizing heroin and cocaine would save Great Britain as much as $20 billion a year, a British drug reform group claims in a 50-page report issued this week. The Transform Drug Policy Foundation said the savings would come primarily in the form of reductions in the cost of government enforcement.

The report, “A Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of Prohibition and Regulation,” purports to be the first cost-benefit analysis ever undertaken with respect to drug prohibition in Britain. According to an analysis in the Drug War Chronicle, “the British government has relied on mere assertion to justify maintaining prohibition and to argue that the harms of legalization would outweigh its benefits.” The drug reform foundation examined criminal justice, drug treatment, crime, and other social costs, and concluded that “a regime of regulated legalization would accrue large savings over the current prohibitionist policy.”

The Drug War Chronicle reported that the reform group “postulated four different legalization scenarios based on drug use levels declining by half, staying the same, increasing by half, and doubling. Even under the worst-case scenario, with drug use doubling under legalization, Britain would still see annual savings of $6.7 billion. Under the best case scenario, the savings would approach $20 billion annually.”

Specifically, the report says that “even in the highly unlikely event of heroin and cocaine use increasing 100%, the net benefit of a move to regulation and control remains substantial. The economic benefits of regulation identified are also of a magnitude to suggest that even with significant margins of error we can assume that legally regulated markets would deliver substantial net savings to the Treasury and wider society.”

In addition, the report notes that “The Government has also repeatedly failed to acknowledge that prohibition is a policy choice, not a fixed feature of the policy landscape that must be worked within, or around.”

“The most striking conclusion from the analysis of current costs,” the report concludes, “is that prohibition of drugs is the root cause of almost all drug-related acquisitive crime, and that this crime constitutes the majority of drug-related harms and costs to society.”

The full report from the Transform Drug Policy Foundation can be downloaded in PDF format here.

Photo Credit: http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com

addiction drugs