Who could argue with a plan to eradicate the scourge of illicit drugs from America? The idea to dedicate the resources of our country to eliminate illicit drugs was brilliant. In 1971, when President Nixon proclaimed illegal drugs as Public Enemy No. 1 and that the country would go to war to remove dangerous drugs from our society, the war on drugs was hailed as a great plan, worthy of our support.
The war on drugs led to, among other things, the creation of the DEA and the spending of billions of dollars by federal, state and local governments. Over the years, they have purchased airplanes, helicopters, vehicles, surveillance devices, herbicides for use in foreign countries, and guns and weapons of every type imaginable.
You can’t say that America hasn’t spent enough money on the war on drugs. Some estimate that today the combined federal state and local governments spend more than an estimated $50 billion annually on the war on drugs.1 The amount is staggering and yet most estimates don’t include indirect costs. For example, when a person is incarcerated for possession, his or her family may need to rely on welfare and other social services while that person is in jail.
Every day the police search men, women, children, vehicles, offices and homes looking for drugs. Every day men, women and children are arrested and many are jailed for possessing drugs. Some estimates put the number of drug-related arrests as high as almost 2 million a year.2 There’s been no lack of effort in the war on drugs. It’s hard to imagine that our federal, state or local police could be doing anything more in their fight against illicit drugs. The effort, the resources and the will have been clearly at work in the unending war on drugs.
The problem, of course, is that this brilliant plan to eradicate drugs just hasn’t worked. If the war on drugs had achieved its goal by removing the scourge of drugs from our society, then it might have been worthwhile. Every penny spent, every aggressive search, every arrest and every incarceration might have been worth it.
But can anyone truly argue that the billions and billions of dollars spent every year have made drugs less available, more difficult to purchase or less likely to ruin lives? Are fewer families torn apart by drug addiction? Is the drug problem any less severe today than in 1971? Indeed, there is a strong argument that the war on drugs is inflicting greater social harm than the drugs themselves.3
Beginning in late 2000, KCBA embarked on a thorough examination of the nation’s drug policy. KCBA’s Drug Policy Project has assembled a coalition of lawyers, doctors, pharmacists and other professionals to study the drug problem and to look for ways to reduce crime, improve public health, protect our children and better utilize our scarce public resources.
This effort has produced a number of reports and resolutions adopted by the KCBA Board of Trustees. The Association has promoted expanded access to drug treatment programs and sought to shift the emphasis away from the primary reliance on criminal sanctions in dealing with drug use. KCBA also has played a key role in drug sentencing reform passed by the Legislature in 2002. A summary of the efforts, findings and accomplishments of the Drug Policy Project can be found at KCBA’s website.4
The Drug Policy Project has turned its focus on the criminal enforcement of marijuana laws. In May 2007, the Board of Trustees adopted the Drug Policy Project’s Federalism Resolution:
States should be allowed to adopt and implement legislation governing the production, distribution and use of marijuana; federal law should not impede or preempt the exercise of state authority in this area.
In December 2007, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution proposed by the Drug Policy Project to the effect that marijuana should be regulated and taxed, and most criminal sanctions should be eliminated. Exactly how this is to be accomplished is left to the wisdom of the Legislature.
The problem, of course, is that state laws that purport to regulate controlled substances such as marijuana can be ignored by federal prosecutors. That is precisely the reason for the Federalism Resolution. Until states are allowed to effectively carry out their own laws governing the production, distribution and use of marijuana, true reform can’t happen.
The hope is that, given the opportunity, different states will devise many different ways to deal with the production, distribution, possession and use of marijuana, and hopefully there will be a state program somewhere that actually works. Let’s find out what works and how much it costs. Some plans will result in decriminalization of marijuana, others will retain a level of criminal prosecutions. Let the states experiment with different ideas and approaches. How else can we find out whether there is a better way to deal with our drug problem?
KCBA does not begin to suggest that it has a monopoly on good ideas. Maybe there’s a plan that isn’t as ambitious or brilliant as the war on drugs, but which results in fewer persons addicted to illicit drugs, fewer persons jailed for possessing drugs and actually reduces crime on the streets at a lower cost to society.
The KCBA believes that it’s time to look for different ways to deal with the drug problem. Hopefully, the country will find a better way to deal with the scourge of drugs. Maybe there is a not-so-brilliant plan out there that actually works.
Daniel Gandara is a shareholder with the firm of Vandeberg, Johnson & Gandara in its Seattle office. His practice includes real estate and business transactions and commercial and tort litigation.
1 Drug Policy Alliance Network (website at www.drugpolicy.org/homepage.cfm).
2 War on Drugs Clock (website at www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm).
3 King County Bar Association, Is it Time to End the War on Drugs? (2001).
4 www.kcba.org.
Go Back