I have always disliked the use of "war" language for law enforcement issues, or indeed for anything other than... well, actual war. It implies a beginning, middle, and end, resulting in victory or defeat. That works when you're talking about two countries going to war, but how do you win a war on poverty? Unless everyone winds up with the exact same amount of money, the people with less just get defined as "poor" no matter what. Suppose we described the illegality of murder as a "war on murder." How would one ever realistically "win" such a war?
Whether something ought to be legal or illegal has nothing to do with whether prohibiting it is a "war" that can be "won." That's completely irrelevant and should be taken off the table. People won't stop committing crimes just because they are illegal. The reason something is illegal is not that you expect to stop its happening ever, but because society has a compelling interest in punishing it; in other words, that the prohibited action commits an injustice against society that deserves to be penalized.
The reasons for prohibiting some things (murder, theft) are obvious; they do harm to others. In other cases, the law prohibits actions that do not automatically harm others but that increase the risk of harm and are thus socially irresponsible - drunk driving, or simple speeding, for instance. Most tenuous are "victimless" crimes where the prohibited action poses a risk to no one other than the person themselves - not wearing a motorcycle helmet, for instance. And of course, there's a graded scale of penalties to fit the harm or degree of threat that each kind of crime inflicts.
The main comparators for legalization of drugs would be alcohol and tobacco. But it doesn't quite fit either mold, really. In the case of alcohol, prohibition was up against a number of problems. One was that alcohol usage was social tradition going back time out of mind; there was no real consensus that there was anything really wrong with it, and the law had to make so many loopholes as to become a dead letter from the beginning. Another was that alcohol could be used moderately and responsibly without the ill effects of drunkenness or alcoholism. That seems like one difference to me; one can drink alcoholic drinks without getting drunk, but I never heard of someone using drugs without getting high (though there are more moderate highs and more extreme ones). I'm not sure there's a marijuana equivalent to a glass of wine with dinner.
In the case of tobacco, we've never prohibited it altogether. Instead, it's been subjected to increasingly stringent regulation over the last few decades, and of course the kind of education and advertising campaigns that the gentleman in the video points to as a model for discouraging tobacco use. With all of that, as of 2010 about 19% of the US population smokes (per the CDC).
Now, with its current illegal status, apparently about 8.3% of the US population currently uses illegal drugs, the lion's share of it marijuana. There is already plenty of education and advertising aimed at discouraging marijuana use; it's hard to expect that in a decriminalized environment, those means would reduce use from current levels. Presumably use would rise. The question is how much. I expect it would land somewhere between the current level and the tobacco level - somewhere in the 10-15% range. It will be interesting to watch what happens in states like Colorado, though as long as it's legal in some states and not others you'll have the "mecca" phenomenon, where people visit or migrate to legalized states from prohibition ones.
On the whole, I'm still undecided. I can see the logic of treating marijuana (but not harder drugs) like tobacco. I think there absolutely will be a rise in usage, and I'm doubtful that there would be a significant decline in things like gang crime as a result. Most of that is turf wars over dealing harder drugs like cocaine and heroin, not pot, as near as I can tell. I'm worried about what risk of harm there will be from that increased usage - will we see more traffic accidents from people driving while high, will there be an economic impact on people's work? Will there be any actual reduction in law enforcement costs over legalizing pot alone? Will those costs simply get transferred into the costs of monitoring regulation compliance?
Whether something ought to be legal or illegal has nothing to do with whether prohibiting it is a "war" that can be "won." That's completely irrelevant and should be taken off the table. People won't stop committing crimes just because they are illegal. The reason something is illegal is not that you expect to stop its happening ever, but because society has a compelling interest in punishing it; in other words, that the prohibited action commits an injustice against society that deserves to be penalized.
The reasons for prohibiting some things (murder, theft) are obvious; they do harm to others. In other cases, the law prohibits actions that do not automatically harm others but that increase the risk of harm and are thus socially irresponsible - drunk driving, or simple speeding, for instance. Most tenuous are "victimless" crimes where the prohibited action poses a risk to no one other than the person themselves - not wearing a motorcycle helmet, for instance. And of course, there's a graded scale of penalties to fit the harm or degree of threat that each kind of crime inflicts.
The main comparators for legalization of drugs would be alcohol and tobacco. But it doesn't quite fit either mold, really. In the case of alcohol, prohibition was up against a number of problems. One was that alcohol usage was social tradition going back time out of mind; there was no real consensus that there was anything really wrong with it, and the law had to make so many loopholes as to become a dead letter from the beginning. Another was that alcohol could be used moderately and responsibly without the ill effects of drunkenness or alcoholism. That seems like one difference to me; one can drink alcoholic drinks without getting drunk, but I never heard of someone using drugs without getting high (though there are more moderate highs and more extreme ones). I'm not sure there's a marijuana equivalent to a glass of wine with dinner.
In the case of tobacco, we've never prohibited it altogether. Instead, it's been subjected to increasingly stringent regulation over the last few decades, and of course the kind of education and advertising campaigns that the gentleman in the video points to as a model for discouraging tobacco use. With all of that, as of 2010 about 19% of the US population smokes (per the CDC).
Now, with its current illegal status, apparently about 8.3% of the US population currently uses illegal drugs, the lion's share of it marijuana. There is already plenty of education and advertising aimed at discouraging marijuana use; it's hard to expect that in a decriminalized environment, those means would reduce use from current levels. Presumably use would rise. The question is how much. I expect it would land somewhere between the current level and the tobacco level - somewhere in the 10-15% range. It will be interesting to watch what happens in states like Colorado, though as long as it's legal in some states and not others you'll have the "mecca" phenomenon, where people visit or migrate to legalized states from prohibition ones.
On the whole, I'm still undecided. I can see the logic of treating marijuana (but not harder drugs) like tobacco. I think there absolutely will be a rise in usage, and I'm doubtful that there would be a significant decline in things like gang crime as a result. Most of that is turf wars over dealing harder drugs like cocaine and heroin, not pot, as near as I can tell. I'm worried about what risk of harm there will be from that increased usage - will we see more traffic accidents from people driving while high, will there be an economic impact on people's work? Will there be any actual reduction in law enforcement costs over legalizing pot alone? Will those costs simply get transferred into the costs of monitoring regulation compliance?
