Friday, 5 April 2024

More news from the War on Drugs™


"When President Nixon declared drug addiction Public Enemy Number One in 1971, it was with his 1969 declaration to Congress that the full forces of government must be marshalled “to cope with this growing menace to the general welfare of the United States.” Again, the nation was told, we would reduce crime and poverty, lower the scope and costs of incarceration, and stamp out a danger to the American family.
    "It is a vast understatement to say that these assurances were wrong ...
    "As of 2015, the rate of prisoners as a function of the population has grown from 100 per 100,000 in the period before Nixonian drug policy to over 500 per 100,000. As a result, the United States has become the world’s largest jailer, both in absolute terms and in rate. ...
    "Between 1973 and 2013, over $1 trillion was spent on drug enforcement in the U.S. alone. Yet, in 2016, Americans spent $150 billion on heroin, methamphetamines, cocaine, and marijuana, which doesn’t even factor in other classes of illicit drugs. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of these sunk opportunity costs is that despite a regime of increasing funding for supply-side enforcement, drug prices have continued to decline over the last four decades. This isn’t to say that they exist in cost parity with legal substances; their prices are still higher. What it does say is that current policy does little to abate demand.
    "Moreover, instead of reducing crime, prohibition simply creates more criminals. Everyone involved in the drug market, from supplier to distributor to consumer, is automatically a criminal. Absent the property rights protections and dispute resolution apparatus available via normal legal channels, interested parties must resolve their own conflicts, often leading to violent means. ...
    "Just as it was with alcohol during Prohibition, quality control is an issue with illegal drugs. As we discussed earlier, prohibitory laws create incentives to minimise the costs of production and transport while maximising profit, which in turn trends towards potency as the major concern. Because the product is manufactured by local entrepreneurs, however organised, there are no industry-wide safety standards. Hence, the current issue of heroin laced with fentanyl, for example. This leads to an increase in drug-related overdoses, and other related problems.
    "These are just a few of the more obvious social costs related to the War on Drugs™."

9 comments:

Tom Hunter said...

I've long been sympathetic to this argument, but when Oregon did a decriminalisation on hard drugs back in 2020 this is what happened:

Oregon has recorded the highest percentage increase in fentanyl overdose deaths since 2019 at a staggering 1500%…. “We are having an overdose epidemic like I’ve never seen and I’ve been in this field for over 40 years,… It’s crazy out there,” said Rick Treleaven, the chief executive officer at BestCare Treatment Services, a recovery services provider based in Central Oregon. “This is a very dangerous time to be a drug addict in Oregon.”

As a result they just over-turned that law change the other day:

On Monday, Oregon’s Democratic Governor Tina Kotek signed into law House Bill 4002, reverting the possession of small amounts of drugs back into a criminal offense and marking the end of a pioneering decriminalization experiment plagued by implementation challenges.

The criminal offence is not that harsh as it still directs arrestees into treatment programs (which don't to work so...).

In any case when see the likes of San Francisco, with people shooting up in the streets while cops drive by, I'd say you've effectively got the policy you want at a local level. You think it's working there?

Tom Hunter said...

Put another way, all I'm seeing here is the argument that all that has to be done is repeat Oregon and SF’s experiment on a national scale across the USA and …. the former won’t just replicate across the nation?

Why wouldn't it?

Libertyscott said...

I'd say the Oregon experience is as much to do with the following:

- Defunding the Police so much that criminal behaviour (threatening, vandalism, theft, public defecation) isn't policed, so the people using drugs are not peaceful, rather it is anarchy.
- Tragedy of the commons, as Portland refuses to let property owners take charge of the street/path outside their property, take steps to remove people.
- All backed philosophically by a culture of "nobody is responsible for what they do", "X people are oppressed victims" and "we live in the suburbs, so we don't care - if only the state would look after "these people".

Legalisation in a vacuum of enforcing real crime has failed

Tom Hunter said...

@Liberty...

Good points. I also liked this one from a comment on my post over at No Minister:

My old mate and colleague, cannabis activist Graham Watson (memory eternal), was paradoxically very much opposed to decriminalization of his favorite drug. As he quite rightly pointed out, if a drug is legal to consume, but still illegal to produce, then you can still only buy it from criminals. With the result that you’ll still have all the same problems that you had with prohibition, but now with more consumption. He foresaw that the end result would be that people would prefer prohibition to that, and so it has proved in Oregon.

if you’re going to make it legal, it should be legal on both ends. Halfway legal is the worst of both worlds. Make Cola Coca again!

Craig said...

This has the ring of "next time it'll work!".
How would you characterize the parallel failure in Portugal?

Tom Hunter said...

Sorry Peter, but is it the link in my comment that's causing it not to appear?

Peter Cresswell said...

@Tom: D'you mean this one below? (Not sure, if so.)

* * * *

@Liberty...

Good points. I also liked this one from a comment on my post over at No Minister:

My old mate and colleague, cannabis activist Graham Watson (memory eternal), was paradoxically very much opposed to decriminalization of his favorite drug. As he quite rightly pointed out, if a drug is legal to consume, but still illegal to produce, then you can still only buy it from criminals. With the result that you’ll still have all the same problems that you had with prohibition, but now with more consumption. He foresaw that the end result would be that people would prefer prohibition to that, and so it has proved in Oregon.

if you’re going to make it legal, it should be legal on both ends. Halfway legal is the worst of both worlds. Make Cola Coca again!

Peter Cresswell said...

PS: Mr Watson made a good point. Full legalisation is necessary in order to avoid the worst of both worlds.

@Craig: What failure?
By 2018, "Portugal had the lowest drug-related death rate in Western Europe, one-tenth of Britain and one-fiftieth of the U.S. HIV infections from drug use injection had declined 90%. The cost per citizen of the program amounted to less than $10/citizen/year while the U.S. had spent over $1 trillion over the same amount of time." Things have declined since then, largely I would argue due to the same problem described by Mr Watson (as João Goulão said, “Decriminalization is not a silver bullet…. If you decriminalize and do nothing else, things will get worse”); and also because of the pressure in Schengen Europe of being the one semi-free place.

Tom Hunter said...

That's the one. You can wipe my three comments immediately preceding yours.