American Paradox

"...Tell Bill Clinton to go and inhale" - Cypress Hill, "I Want to Get High"

Given the widespread dissatisfaction with our Nation's drug laws, you would think that some intrepid news organization would be trying to find out which of the candidates for President in 2008 will be receiving the "drug vote." But alas, no one will cover this area because it is simply too controversial for the middle-aged white suburban housewife -- the target audience of evening news programs. Apparently these are the only people on the planet who still believe that a minimum of 15 years in prison is proportionate to the offense of selling two ounces of marijuana, a substance without a meaningful LD-50.

How widespread is the dissatisfaction with drug laws? Why are people dissatisfied? According to Citizens Against Prohibition, there are at least 40 million Americans who believe that drug prohibition is the wrong policy for America. This might be because even the conservative, Government propaganda-oriented agencies that track usage information estimate that 20% of Adults between 20 and 59 have tried Cocaine "or other street drugs" during their lifetime. In other words, of those people who have tried illicit drugs of any type (a lot of Americans), a large majority of them probably do not view the consequences of their drug use as exceeding the costs of proscribing it. But even so, there are plenty of people who have never used illicit drugs who believe that prohibition is a losing strategy for American public policy.

People who know virtually anything about the effects of the great Drug War in this country also tend to be in favor of its ceasing immediately, or at least fading away into a drug abuse treatment regime, not a criminalization regime. There are probably four reasons for this that I can think of, of the top of my head (though research would certainly disclose more):

1. The high levels of enforcement in drug interdiction at our borders has the undisputed economic effect of increasing the cost of drugs due to artifical scarcity (lower market supply --> higher market prices), which means higher profits for drug sellers, higher levels of crime by users to attain the funds necessary for now-high cost drugs, and more violent conflicts with law enforcement.
2. Drug prohibition has the same effect as alcohol prohibition for so-called "minors" under the Age of 21, leading to secretive use (to avoid detection by zealous law enforcement agents) and avoidance of treatment for complications and addiction, as well as making illicit drug use "cool" among Teenagers and college students, simply because it is forbidden.
3. The distinction between abuse of legal drugs (alcohol) and illegal drugs (marijuana, primarily) is very hard to make medically, and there is significant evidence that drugs such as marijuana are far less physically addictive than alcohol, and have less deleterious effects on the development of liver disease or cancer.
4. Drug enforcement is statistically very racist, with higher penalties for drugs that African-Americans more commonly use (e.g., crack cocaine) than for drugs that rich, white investment bankers typically use (e.g., powdered cocaine), differences that have never been rationally explained by anyone in law enforcement or the legislature.

Who gets the "Drug Vote"? Which major candidate, then, should an advocate of repealing prohibition favor? Analysis is hard, particularly since both the mainstream parties in the United States (Democratic and Republican) are firmly in favor of drug prohibition and the waste of billions of federal tax dollars on creating a crime-ridden distorted market for substances the American people want and will always want. But here are some thoughts on the major candidates for office in 2008:

Hillary Clinton: Probably in favor of the status quo, given her husband's strong support of the Drug War, and no indications that she would do anything to upset her attempt at courting the "moderate" American housewife for her electoral strategy.
Barack Obama: More likely than most candidates to feel some sympathy for the facts. Having worked as a lawyer and also being African-American, Obama has probably seen the horrible effect of federal drug policy on inner-city Black America, and can also appreciate the economic nonsense that is the Drug War. He has also admitted to smoking Marijuana in his autobiographical book, "Dreams of My Father." However, these speculations are easily countered by the fact that little is known of Obama's positions except that they are always moderate and centrist, which would tend to support continuation of a vigorous form of prohibition.
John Edwards: Because Edwards has always declared positions that are socially moderate but economically fairly letist, it is hard to tell where he falls on the drug war. For instance, he says he is "not quite there yet" in response to his wife's support for civil unions between homosexuals. It's not entirely clear what that means, but before one is ready to roll-up the Drug War, one probably would be ready first to support civil unions, which have majority support in the country and are on the upswing in any event. However, he has received some plaudits from drug legalization groups for his positions on drug legislation, has voted against increased penalties for drug dealers, and has admitted to using drugs in the past. Edwards has also directly addressed the disparity between crack-powder drug sentencing in this country, something few politicians have addressed. On the other hand, he did very little in the Senate to move towards an end to prohibition.
Rudy Giuliani: Undoubtedly a hard-liner against the drug war. In any case, he has to be, since his other stances on social issues are far too liberal for the conservative base (hints of pro-choice and pro-gay-rights).
Mitt Romney: Unclear, but again the fact is that no Republican can be elected and stay alive very long with supporting a full-on war against drugs. It just won't happen in this country.
John McCain: Track record of supporting pro-drug war legislation. Pretty clear on this point. Wants to increase penalties -- however that would be possible? -- for selling drugs.

So who gets the drug vote? I would say either Obama or Edwards, at this point. There is no sure-fire way to tell, but only those two show any inkling of a possible interest in reconfiguring inane government expenditures that lead to far more problems than they solve.

Labels: 2008 Campaign, drugs