We understand the problem—drug prohibition in the United States is a century-old, bloody, expensive, catastrophic mistake. We completely screwed up, making things worse for people in this country and all over the world. (I won’t rehearse the argument in this post. But if you’re curious, you can find it here.)

We know what went wrong, so our next big question is what a post-prohibition nation would look like. Would high-school students be buying heroin in 7-11—as opposed to the parking lot behind 7-11, which is where they’re buying it right now?

No. And Mark Haden, who works with Vancouver Coastal Health, has put up an invaluable Q and A for a post-prohibition Canada/North America. It’s an excellent place to start the conversation and required reading for anyone who cares about drugs—users, dealers, narcotics agents, policymakers, journalists, everyone. A few of my favorite lines in the eight-page paper:

As in alcohol prohibition, dealers and smugglers prefer concentrated products so in times of prohibition weaker, less harmful products are not available. The fact that a drug can be dangerous is the best reason to regulate and control it.

The current situation is one where mainstream society has no control. We do not control the purity or concentration of the drug, the context, the method of use… [In a regulated market] concentrated, smokable preparations would be more restricted than weaker oral solutions.

…heavy reliance on drug law enforcement to cut supplies is an expensive way of making a bad problem even worse. Drug trafficking feeds on the oxygen of profits and drug-law enforcement makes drug trafficking even more lucrative.

Click here and then on the link “questions and answers for a regulated market” to read the whole thing. Also check out his excel spreadsheet for “drug control systems,” showing the ways that meth, alcohol, opiates, coca leaves/powder, tobacco, and the rest would be variably regulated under his ideal system.

Brend an Kiley has worked as a child actor in New Orleans, as a member of the junior press corps at the 1988 Republican National Convention, and, for one happy April, as a bootlegger’s assistant in Nicaragua....

11 replies on “Imagining a Post-Prohibition Future”

  1. Fair enough, but the biggest problem right now and the most overdoses in this area is prescription drugs which are already legal and regulated. Do you think Oxy should be available over the counter like aspirin? Will drug companies be immune from lawsuits when people OD/drop dead? Trial lawyers will never be ok with that and they control the Democratic party.

  3. Dear Idiot of the Universe,

    The argument is not for the abolishment of drug laws. It is for the legalization and government regulation of drugs.

    Thank you.

  4. #3

    Drug law changes little for life in Mexico

    AGUA PRIETA, Sonora – A few blocks from the municipal police station, on the morning after a cartel gunfight took four more lives in Sonora, drug dealers cruise the streets of La Zona Roja with cellphones in their hands.

    Addicts in a local treatment center say these “carros alegres,” or happy cars, bring crack cocaine to consumers with all the speed and reliability of a pizza delivery.

    […]

    The measure incited controversy from Mexico City to Washington, D.C. Legalization advocates suggested that America’s closest neighbor and ally in the drug war had finally recognized the waste of filling prisons with non-violent addicts who need treatment rather than punishment. Drug-enforcement hard-liners warned that eliminating criminal charges for drug abuse would lead to increased public consumption and addiction, perhaps even spawning narco-tourism by Americans looking to get high legally in Mexico.

    That the happy cars still cruise about Agua Prieta suggests that critics and supporters overestimated the law’s possible effects, both on drug violence and the scourge of addiction.

    The reform seems to have had more impact in the rhetorical war over drug decriminalization than it has on Mexican streets. Rather than claiming victory, legalization advocates say the new law may even make things worse because of the way it’s written. Conversely, anti-legalization groups condemn the measure because it appears to legitimize drug abuse.

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2…

  6. @5, yes. You should continue reading. We all should. The sooner we come to terms with the fact that ALL of the resources dedicated to prohibition and enforcement are better spent on education and treatment, the better. All of them.

  7. Prohibition is not only a practical failure, but it is, by its very nature, totalitarian. Prohibition requires that the state decides what every individual can and can’t put into his or her body. It requires, therefore, that the state owns your body.

    Whether you want to have an abortion or use meth, the state does not own your body, no matter how much some would like to pretend it does.

  8. @8, why would you propose policy on how to treat all addicts based on the behavior of some addicts?

    Do you believe that alcoholics (liquid drug addicts) should also be thought of as criminals?

    Do you believe that all the homeless people who are addicted should be thought of as criminals?

    If, as you say, addicts simply go back to using when they’re no longer under supervision, do you believe that indefinite supervision is necessary for all addicts?

    Why do you believe that the U.S.A., which already has the highest incarceration rate in the world, needs to incarcerate even more people?

  9. @10, I agree with you about prison being an effective but expensive method of crime control. But certainly we can agree that prison can keep car thieves from stealing cars, but it can’t keep heroin addicts from getting high, as heroin is widely available in most prisons.

    If a heroin addict refuses electronic monitoring and violates probation, what is the alternative to sending him to prison where he can easily use heroin? And my other questions stand:

    Do you believe that alcoholics (liquid drug addicts) should also be thought of as criminals?

    Do you believe that all the homeless people who are addicted should be thought of as criminals?

    If, as you say, addicts simply go back to using when they’re no longer under supervision, do you believe that indefinite supervision is necessary for all addicts and former addicts?

  10. @12, I’m confused. Earlier, you said that, “…drug addicts should be thought of as criminals who need to be deterred rather than sick people who need treatment.” Have you changed your mind?

    Also, since most people use heroin (and coke and meth and LSD, etc) in the same way that most people use alcohol, i.e. responsibly and without addiction, why should they be forced to pay more for potentially unsafe drugs because a minority of users become addicted? And why should most users of heroin be threatened with jail time for the same reason?

    Certainly, the similarities to alcohol prohibition in the 20’s are clear enough?

  11. We need to try something new for the sake of trying something new, since what we’re doing now is failing so miserably. The “legalizers” should be given a couple whacks at the ball; the “prohibitionists (for want of a better term)” have had a hundred years to make prohibition work plus we have also seen alcohol prohibition fail. You’d think they’d be reluctant to enter any debate on drug policy since they have been so wrong for so long on the subject.

Comments are closed.