Hope for the War on Drugs

A good working definition of uncountable infinity would be the true cost - in tax dollars, in destroyed lives, in lost revenue, in overcrowded prisons, in wasted law enforcement resources, in lost opportunities, in dead bodies - of the 40-year failed War on Drugs.

Equally infinite would be the positive effects of decriminalization at least and legalization/taxation at best.

President Obama has not yet gone as far as FDR did to goose federal revenues by ending Prohibition, but his nomination of Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerkorkian as Drug Czar is a strong indication that reason and logic may be displacing hysterical stupidity in our national drug policy.

On Wednesday, Rachel Maddow covered the nomination, and interviewed Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project.

MADDOW: Do you think that there should be a drug czar? And if there is going to be one, is Gil Kerlikowske a good choice?

MIRKEN: Well, I think, frankly, a lot of us wonder if there should be a drug czar and in the best of all possible worlds, we‘d probably like to see it be a public health person.

But that said, I think there‘s reason for cautious optimism here. Mr. Kerlikowske is a guy who comes a town, Seattle, that has instituted some significant reforms. For example making arrests for personal marijuana the lowest priority for local law enforcement.

And while he hadn‘t been one of the folks pushing for these reforms, he has not been mindlessly obstructionist. And I think by most accounts, he‘s a guy that you could have a rational dialogue with. That was absolutely not the case under George Bush‘s drug czar, John Walters, who was, frankly, a pitchfork-wielding fanatic. An absolute zealot, particularly on marijuana, who had no interest in facts, no interests in data and frankly was perfectly happy to lie about what the research says in service of his ideology.

MADDOW: Well, we saw the results of that when everybody in America stopped smoking pot during the Bush era. No, I‘m just kidding.

Bruce, given what you know of Barack Obama‘s history on this issue and how he has behaved as president thus far, just in terms of how he does politics, what do you expect him to do differently on the drug issue other than this appointment?

MIRKEN: Well, you know, I don‘t think we‘re going to see sudden, radical departures but I think we can see a beginning of rationality. He‘s already talked about dialing back the drug enforcement administration‘s raids on medical marijuana patients and providers in states where it‘s legal.

We have seen that reaffirmed recently by the attorney general. And, you know, we‘re talking about a guy here who keeps saying that we should base policy on data, on research. We should put science ahead of ideology. And if he does that, it opens up the possibility for dialogue on a lot of things, certainly on medical marijuana.

The data is here. We know that this relieves certain kinds of pain, nausea, side-effects of drugs that are used to treat AIDS and cancer. And we should just stop being irrational about it and deal with the science and maybe we can begin to do that.

MADDOW: Bruce, beyond the medical marijuana issue, on the full legalization argument, some folks are starting to make an economic argument that the economic stimulus that booze sales and booze taxes contributed at the end of prohibition might be duplicated now with the end of the prohibition on marijuana, that it could actually be some sort of an economic boon in terms of its taxation and regulation. Do you think that‘s a useful argument?

MIRKEN: Well, I think it‘s a true argument, first of all. I mean, the cost of prohibition in terms of both law enforcement expenses and lost tax revenue is estimated somewhere between $10 billion and $40 billion. That‘s not pocket change.

But, you know, there‘s another side to the economic argument, too. Our current laws are funding these horrific Mexican drug gangs that have started a real war on our southern border. 60 percent of their income, according to Mexican officials, comes from marijuana.

If we treated marijuana like we treat our wine industry here in California, brought it out of the shadows, regulated and taxed it, we could cut off 60 percent of the income to these horrific gangs.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....