• June 19, 2013

Previous

Next

Kristof, Crouch, Soros, and McNamara on Prop 19

November 1, 2010, 9:40 am

A year ago, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote this in an op-ed on the War on Drugs entitled “Drugs Won the War”:

“First, we have vastly increased the proportion of our population in prisons. The United States now incarcerates people at a rate nearly five times the world average. In part, that’s because the number of people in prison for drug offenses rose roughly from 41,000 in 1980 to 500,000 today. Until the war on drugs, our incarceration rate was roughly the same as that of other countries.

“Second, we have empowered criminals at home and terrorists abroad. One reason many prominent economists have favored easing drug laws is that interdiction raises prices, which increases profit margins for everyone, from the Latin drug cartels to the Taliban. Former presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia this year jointly implored the United States to adopt a new approach to narcotics, based on the public-health campaign against tobacco.

“Third, we have squandered resources. Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, found that federal, state and local governments spend $44.1-billion annually enforcing drug prohibitions. We spend seven times as much on drug interdiction, policing and imprisonment as on treatment.”

Just this week, he added this in an op-ed entitled “End the War on Pot”:

“Our nearly century-long experiment in banning marijuana has failed as abysmally as Prohibition did, and California may now be pioneering a saner approach. Sure, there are risks if California legalizes pot. But our present drug policy has three catastrophic consequences.”

And here is Stanley Crouch in The New York Daily News today in an op-ed entitled “Weeding out the Prohibitionists”:

“American states spend an estimated total of $50-billion a year on our penal system. If Proposition 19 decriminalizes marijuana in California, the entire country will see how much money can be saved with laws based less on puritanical superstition than on facts. Then there’s the issue of tax revenues: Federal and state tax revenues for alcohol sales exceed $5.6-billion. Imagine if Prohibition were still in place, and what that would mean for our tight budgets.”

And now George Soros in The Wall Street Journal in an op-ed entitled “Why I Support Legal Marijuana”:

“Law-enforcement agencies today spend many billions of taxpayer dollars annually trying to enforce this unenforceable prohibition. The roughly 750,000 arrests they make each year for possession of small amounts of marijuana represent more than 40 percent of all drug arrests. Regulating and taxing marijuana would simultaneously save taxpayers billions of dollars in enforcement and incarceration costs, while providing many billions of dollars in revenue annually. It also would reduce the crime, violence, and corruption associated with drug markets, and the violations of civil liberties and human rights that occur when large numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens are subject to arrest. Police could focus on serious crime instead.”

And here is Joseph D. McNamara in Reason magazine this month (he is former San Jose Police Chief and now a Hoover Institution fellow and member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition):

“Good policing wins public trust so that people are willing to report crime, come forth as witnesses, and believe police testimony when they sit on juries. The confrontational policing endemic to marijuana enforcement results in volatile stop, search, and frisk situations that ofen escalate into controversial police use of force, alienating minority youths and communities. Busting pot smokers also diverts law enforcement resources from predatory criminals. . . . Our last three presidents used marijuana during their reckless days of youth but went on to successful careers because they were never busted. Millions of others Americans are not so lucky.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Kristof, Crouch, Soros, and McNamara on Prop 19

markbauerlein - November 1, 2010 at 11:39 am

Another voice on the issue, Alan Reynolds at National Review:

“Possession of marijuana is said to be ‘illegal’ — even tiny amounts in the privacy of your own home. That obviously does not mean that pot has been effectively banned. It simply means that an unlucky few who happen to get caught can be subjected to capricious, heavy-handed punishment.

“The most that this quixotic façade of illegality could possibly accomplish is to raise the price of marijuana by restricting supply (e.g., by destroying local or imported plants). The higher price might reduce demand, but that same result could also be accomplished with taxes, as in the case of tobacco and alcohol. In the latter case, the lucrative profits stemming from restricted supply go to the government; with marijuana, they go to foreign and domestic drug lords and pot farmers.

“By restricting supply and thus raising prices, prohibition enforcement is essentially a taxpayer-financed subsidy for the marijuana industry. Unlike other ‘sin taxes,’ prohibition of pot acts as a price-support program for marijuana farmers and distributors. There is also a ‘risk premium’ added to the retail price, because marketing marijuana involves some danger of being sent to prison. When combined with the subsidy resulting from restricted supply, the risk premium provides an irresistible temptation to those most willing to accept big risks in exchange for big rewards, such as violence-prone gangsters. Such people don’t mind selling to children either. Unlike legal firms with liquor licenses, there is no disincentive to sell to minors.”

mush9902 - November 2, 2010 at 11:33 am

Dear Mark,

I can’t help but notice your post didn’t make it on to the daily email of article links. Today is the big day…I am not optimistic. Trying hard not to rely too much on the recent polls, but for all the reasons your sources point to, it’s just not going to be enough for the hateful. Still too taboo. Every single fact on the side of legalization; still not enough. So depressing. I’m a pessimist. If it doesn’t pass; next time there needs to be more focus on what Joe the Plumber can understand; “get the government off my back; what I want to do after a day of work is my business as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else”. My two cents.

coochiecoo - November 5, 2010 at 2:22 am

It’s not going to happen, at least not anytime soon. The people in power have a vested interest in extending this war, just like the terrible, destructive wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Colombia, and wherever else the US may or may not be committed billions of misguided dollars.

Also, the private prison corporations, including the one that helped to write SB 1070 in Arizona, benefit handsomely from incarcerating people on drug offenses, for immigration violations, anything really. It’s the genius of capitalism: it may be misdirected resources, billions burnt up in a puff, lives destroyed, countries like Mexico riven by the most unspeakable violence, but somebody’s profiting quite well off this disaster.

Oh, and now the Tea Party Republicans control the government and are going to rule according to their popular mandate, as Michelle Bachmann, Jim DeMint, Mike Pence, Dick Armey, and the disgraced Newt Gingrich, etc. have been saying the last two days on TV and the radio, so there absolutely will be no changes on the terrible drug war policy, no matter how sane doing so might be.

  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037
subscribe today

Get the insight you need for success in academe.