The Cato Institute
This is the 2nd of 3 posts about growing broad spectrum support for ending the War on Drugs.
The extremely conservative Cato Institute are clearly in the forefront of the campaign to end the war on drugs. I got a mind bending wake-up call last week from visiting their website. The Cato Institute’s visionary position is that the US should legalize – not decriminalize – all addictive drugs. They justify their (utterly rational) viewpoint in two comprehensive, well-researched papers: the 2010 Drug Prohibition White Paper by Miron and Waldcock http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf and the 2009 Drug Decriminalization in Portugal by attorney and Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald (hold on, isn’t Greenwald a progressive?) http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf.
My initial reaction on discovering my views on drug reform are virtually identical to those of an ultra-conservative think tank was amazement. My first thought was that Cato’s position on drug reform was the most “progressive” – in the sense of “forward thinking” – in the country. This was immediately followed by the mental befuddlement (the technical term is cognitive dissonance) you get from trying to equate contradictory concepts (conservative and progressive) and finally anger at the extent media has bastardized our language – and thinking – about politics. We have been deeply conditioned to lump people into rigid categories like conservative, liberal and progressive, which in the 21st century are mainly used as terms of abuse for people who disagree with you. These labels cease to have any meaning when the most urgent issue facing the US is taking our government back from the corporate interests who have hijacked it.
An $88 Billion Windfall for Taxpayers
In addition to citing numerous studies showing that criminalization of drug abuse worsens the drug problem, the White Paper calculates that the US could save $41.3 billion dollars from legalizing addictive drugs, as well as collecting an additional $46.7 billion in revenue from regulating and taxing drugs of addiction (like alcohol and tobacco). The difference between legalization and decriminalization is that drug smugglers and suppliers are still prosecuted under decriminalization. This, according to Cato, makes full legalization more beneficial to taxpayers, as permitting legal production and distribution of drugs allows them to be taxed.
The following is a brief breakdown of the financial benefits of drug legalization:
Savings
- State and local savings: $25.7 billion
- Federal savings: $15.6 billion
- Savings from legalizing marijuana: $8.7 billion
- Savings from legalizing other drugs of addiction: $32.6 billion
Tax Revenue
- Projected revenue from taxing marijuana: $8.7 billion
- Projected revenue from taxing other drugs of addiction: $38 billion
The Portuguese Experiment with Decriminalization
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal describes the Portuguese experiment with decriminalizing all addictive drugs in 2001. According to Greenwald, full legalization wasn’t an option, owing to international treaties Portugal had signed. Under the 2001 law, police issue citations to addicts, rather than arresting them. They then have 72 hours to report to a Dissuasion Commission, which can order a range of sanctions, including “absolution” (a finding that no drug abuse has occurred), a verbal warning, suspension of drivers and professional licenses, bans on visiting high risk locales or associating with known drug abusers, on-going monitoring for proof of abstinence, prohibition against foreign travel and suspension of welfare benefits.
Outcome studies show that the new law has resulted in surge in drug treatment in Portugal. Prior to 2001, the main barrier to treatment was addicts’ fear of arrest and prosecution. There has also been a clear reduction in drug abuse in the pre-adolescents and adolescents – a formative age group for behavioral patterns that are key determinants of future drug abuse. The prediction by law and order proponents that decriminalization would lead to a massive increase in drug abuse never eventuated. Portuguese drug abuse rates, once among the highest in Europe, are now among the lowest. The other dire prediction, that druggies from all over Europe would flock to Portugal to get loaded, also proved unfounded. As of 2006, 95% of drug abusers receiving citations were Portuguese and 0% were from other European Union countries.
Cato, by the way, has found a way to save taxpayers another $180 billion by legalizing 8.3 million illegal immigrants.
To be continued.
Share and Enjoy:
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Ted Zeppelin
FusunA
halthouse1
Kanuk
SpiritManSF
hilarleo
Salon.com
Comments
Talk about waging peace by "surges in drug treatment"! What sanity.
Status quo huggers not willing to get it. Profiteers so very clever and slick at bribing and manipulating token prejudices. The culture war bullet points. Cato Institute openness gives me hope.
Eager to read your next installment! libby
Thanks for this surprising piece.
-R-
I am wondering what plans the Cato Institute has for prevention and treatment, and what those costs are? The Cato Institute report seems to consist entirely of the money saved by cutting law enforement and court and incarceration costs--it is looking at things in purely financial terms, not at public health issue, or in terms of the services needed to replace incarceration.
In the United Nations 2009 report on drug control (http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2009/WDR2009_eng_web.pdf) it says:
"The economic argument for drug legalization says:
legalize drugs, and generate tax income. This argument is
gaining favour, as national administrations seek new
sources of revenue during the current economic crisis.
This legalize and tax argument is un-ethical and uneconomical.
It proposes a perverse tax, generation upon
generation, on marginalized cohorts (lost to addiction)
to stimulate economic recovery. Are the partisans of this
cause also in favour of legalizing and taxing other seemingly
intractable crimes like human trafficking? Modern-
day slaves (and there are millions of them) would
surely generate good tax revenue to rescue failed banks.
The economic argument is also based on poor fiscal
logic: any reduction in the cost of drug control (due to
lower law enforcement expenditure) will be offset by
much higher expenditure on public health (due to the
surge of drug consumption). The moral of the story:
don’t make wicked transactions legal just because they
are hard to control."
In Portugal, (according to wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal) the drug program was apparantly initiated to decrease their very high rates of needle-related HIV. They spent a vast amount of resources for a public service campaign not to share needles, a needle-exchange program, and they doubled their funding for treatment and rehab. The number of people on substitution treatment (such as methadone) went from 6040 to 25 808. I just am not seeing the Cato report factoring these expenses into the equation.
As is happening in Portugal, the UN also believes in using resources for treatment rather than incarceration:
"Law enforcement should shift its focus from drug
users to drug traffickers. Drug addiction is a health condition:
people who take drugs need medical help, not
criminal retribution. Attention must be devoted to heavy
drug users. They consume the most drugs, cause the
greatest harm to themselves and society – and generate
the most income to drug mafias. Drug courts and medical
assistance are more likely to build healthier and safer
societies than incarceration. I appeal to Member States
to pursue the goal of universal access to drug treatment
as a commitment to save lives and reduce drug demand."
Wikipedia cites more recent statistics (from 2008 rather than 2006, as in Mr. Greenwald's article above), and it seems that lifetime drug use in Portugal has actually increased a little. The long-term effects may still be too early to tell, but more people are definitely in treatment, due to Portugal's investment in and commitment to public education and treatment.
My concern is that in our current economic climate, decriminalizing or legalizing drugs without the committment to putting the public education, treatment, and support services in place would actually be very harmful for the people least able to advocate for themselves.
Thank you for sharing this interesting topic and reports. I look forward to the next part in the series!
(also the website of the UN document was cut off, but if anyone is interested, the last 3 characters after the word web should be "pdf")
Today's prisons are overcrowded. Why? Too many killlers, robbers and thieves these days? Nope. All the drug offenders who get incarcerated and have to do their full time, with no possibility of parole, no early release for good behavior and no shortened or commuted sentences to allow them to be released due to overcrowding. Instead, they let murderers, thieves, robbers and rapists out to ease overcrowding.
The utter hypocrisy of our drug laws are so blatant as to make a nun cry with shame.
I'm glad other folks are at least smelling the money in legalization. The War on Drugs was lost back in 1933 when prohibition was ended. Drive by shootings, gangland style executions, innocent bystanders being killed by stray bullets, corrupt polise, judges, political officials, increased gang activity and more violence in the streets.
You'd think people thought this was a new thing. All one has to do is look at the results, the waste and the harm Prohibition did and we'd know better. Now we add stigmatization and marginalization, along with mandatory prison sentences for users and dealers.
Monetary benefits aside, ending this Drug War would have incredible social benefits as well. Less gang related activity -- after all, the drug scene and market is the gang's bread and butter. Gun sales and gun thefts would go down, because there's no reason to be an armed force protecting a turf that no longer provides illicit profit.
Less police forces necessary to guard against our moral safety and social pressures. That means they could start spending more time investigating real crime that isn't directly linked to illegal drug trade. And that linked crime would go way, way down, just as it did when Prohibition was ended.
Safer streets, less prison incarceration (which stigmatizes you the rest of your life, make no mistake) and less social antipathy for the recreational user (many of whom work right beside you every day and have been 'using' their drug of choice for years, decades even) who just enjoys a different one beyond alcohol or tobacco, the two most addictive substances man regularly consumes, legally.
Alcohol is more physically addictive than heroin. So is tobacco. Marijuana isn't even addictive, nor are there proven health detriments beyond the smoke. Yet it's a Class I drug, which means it is physically addictive and has known health complications associated directly with it's use. Alcohol and tobacco are conspicuously missing from that Class, yet they definitely belong on it.
I don't advocate drug use, but I also don't advocate such incredible hypocrisy or stupidity as the Laws of the Land enacted for the War on Drugs.
I'm glad you posted this and you're also right. Liberal and conservative are only pejorative slurs these days. They've completely lost any rational meaning in a dialogue. I'm very conservative when it comes to limited government. I'm very liberal when it comes to taking care of our population and people in general. I'm more conservative when it comes to what's none of anyone else's damn business in my home. I'm more liberal when it comes to making sure that employers don't run rough shod over consumers or their employees.
So am I a liberal or a conservative? Depends on the situation and whether or not I feel I have to look over my shoulder to make sure no-one is going to scream, "He's one of THEM! Get 'im!"
rated and regards
In his paper, Greenwald explains the "cohort" effect at length. Because it's "prevalence" and not "incidence" that's being measured in Portugal, statistically it looks like drug abuse has increased in older age groups. What is actually being measured is the very large cohort of Portuguese teenagers that was abusing drugs ten years ago. They are now 25-30 years old. It's very mischievous of Wikipedia to make out like a bunch of 25-30 year olds have suddenly taken up drugs. These are actually the same potheads that got Portuguese authorities up in arms 10 years ago. They're just 10 years older now.
As for the UN, I ceased to regard them as an authority in public health when they (ignored the medical research) and declared cellphones safe and came out in favor of mass medicating people by putting fluoride in their water.
I also feel quite uncomfortable with their characterization of drug abuse as an individualized medical problem that can only be dealt with through individualized medical treatment. I, along with a lot of other people, regard it as a social problem.
Also I'm not clear why you fault Cato for not taking on the issue of drug treatment. That would seem to lay outside their area of expertise. If Cato can figure out ways to save us money, it's up to the rest of it to lobby for it to be used in socially productive ways (for example, by increasing access to drug prevention and treatment).