Drug Dilemma: A Federalist Solution?

By Peirce, Neal | Nation's Cities Weekly, September 29, 2003 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Drug Dilemma: A Federalist Solution?

Peirce, Neal, Nation's Cities Weekly

Has the time come for the federal government to cede the "war on drugs" to America's state and local governments?

A powerful case for devolving critical drug policy--choices of which substances to forbid, whether to focus police on drug cases, imprisoning versus treating offenders--has been made by two Florida State University economists, David Rasmussen and Bruce Benson.

Of course it's hard to imagine rational debate about drug policy as long as President Bush and his ideologically driven attorney general, John Ashcroft, are in office. Even the never-inhaling Clinton administration sat quietly as both federal and state incarcerations for drug offenses skyrocketed.

But the common-sense case for fresh thinking has become overwhelming. Largely because of drug cases, the United States with 2,071,686 people behind bars, had the world's highest incarceration rate in 2000. It cost the country $26 billion that year to imprison 1.3 million nonviolent offenders--including hundreds of thousands of drug offenders.

Rigid prohibition remains federal policy even as substantial experiments in decoupling hard and soft drugs, especially decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, and spreading in Europe and Canada. Ashcroft is even cracking down hard on California coops that administer marijuana to relieve the acute pain of terminally ill persons--a policy specifically approved by California voters in a 1996 referendum.

But it's not just authoritarian or moralistic ideology that drives harsh drug policy. Our political system continues to condone stiff penalties, long sentences--even though there's ample evidence that treatment of addiction, dollar for dollar, is far more effective. Indeed, a much-cited RAND study that focused on cocaine use concluded that an added dollar on drug treatment is seven times more cost-effective than a dollar more for drug enforcement.

From 1968 to 1998, drug arrests per capita rose from 26 per 100,000 population to 615 per 100,000. Yet illicit drug use is still flourishing. Why aren't we objecting?

Most blame is usually thrown at politically opportunistic legislators. But legislators, argue Rasmussen and Benson in a law review article, respond largely to interest groups. And there's a massive lobby out there pushing the drug war--the police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors and their allies in federal enforcement bureaus.

Indeed, goes this argument, bureaucrats instinctively fight to expand their funds and turf, using direct lobbying, policy manipulation and selective release of information and misinformation. Back in 1937, enforcement agencies pushed for the Marijuana Tax Act, which proved pivotal in the subsequent criminalization of marijuana. The federal Bureau of Narcotics fed the "reefer madness" of the time, claiming--contrary to scientific fact--that marijuana causes insanity, incites rape, causes delirious rages and violent crimes.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Drug Dilemma: A Federalist Solution?


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?