Latest

Despite opening with an attack on legalization, the UN's new World Drug Report 2009 is refreshingly candid about the limitations of the criminal justice approach to drug use. Ryan Grim at Huffington Post notes that the report praises Portugal's decriminalization policy, which is remarkable considering that the UN had previously "suggested the policy was in violation of international drug treaties and would encourage 'drug tourism.'"

Attitudes are beginning to change at the UN, as this passage from the report clearly illustrates:

At times, drug possession can serve as a pretext to detain an otherwise dangerous or suspect individual, but otherwise, the law must allow for non-custodial alternatives when a police officer stumbles upon small amounts of drugs. It is important that the incident be documented and the opportunity availed to direct the user to treatment if required, but it is rarely beneficial to expend limited prison space on such offenders. According to surveys, between a quarter and a half of the population of many countries in Europe and North America has been in possession of illicit drugs at one time or another in their lives. Most remained productive citizens. In only a small share of these cases would arrest, and the lifelong stigma it brings, have been appropriate.

Yes! Stop arresting people for drugs. Good call, guys. This is a pretty straightforward endorsement of decriminalization, and it's exciting to hear this kind of rhetoric coming from the United Nations. Decriminalization won't solve many of the worst consequences of the war on drugs, but ending prohibition is impossible without first establishing a consensus that arresting drug users is bad policy. It looks like this concept is beginning to sink in.

For many years now, drug war supporters have relied on a political strategy of pretending that legalization isn’t a serious option. Only a crazy person would even consider such a thing, they claim, as exemplified last year by a statement from the UN drug czar that drug policy reformers are a bunch of "lunatics" who are "obviously on drugs."

Well, it looks like that's beginning to change. This year's World Drug Report 2009 from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime begins by dedicating its very first page to the idea of legalizing drugs.

Of late, there has been a limited but growing chorus among politicians, the press, and even in public opinion saying: drug control is not working. The broadcasting volume is still rising and the message spreading.

Much of this public debate is characterized by sweeping generalizations and simplistic solutions. Yet, the very heart of the discussion underlines the need to evaluate the effectiveness of the current approach.

What follows is an utterly fact-free attack on the legalization argument, relying on all the typical prohibitionist assumptions we've heard before: use will skyrocket, societies will be thrown into decay, and the decades of drug war progress we've supposedly made will be washed away in a raging torrent of death and despair.

It's annoying, to be sure, but it's equally beautiful to behold the sudden desperation and discomfort of the international drug war leadership. They now stand before us, stained and stigmatized by the grand and unambiguous failure of the policies upon which they once proudly placed their names.

It is truly a milestone for the drug policy reform movement that the drug war leaders of the world are now decidedly on the defensive.

Update: Pete Guither has more over at DrugWarRant. 

The idea that our drug policy should prioritize public health over law enforcement is such common sense that even the drug czar is comfortable saying it. Yet Warren County, OH prosecutor Rachel Hutzel has bravely attempted to refute this emerging conventional wisdom in a perfectly incoherent editorial entitled Many drug offenders need punishment, not just treatment:

Many thefts are committed to get drug money. The majority of traffic-related deaths are drug or alcohol-related. And personal crimes such as child endangering and domestic violence are usually fueled by drugs or alcohol.
…
Many drug crimes should continue to be dealt with harshly. The people who are harmed by the selfish, destructive acts of drug users and drug dealers deserve nothing less.

Wait, I didn't hear anyone say anything about not punishing thieves, drunk drivers, and child endangerers. I'm pretty sure everyone's in agreement about that. If someone steals, can't you prosecute them for stealing? Am I missing something?

The abundance of crimes with actual victims is all the more reason to stop wasting criminal justice resources on people whose only crime was taking a drug that isn't allowed.

Police in Indianapolis burst into the wrong and terrified an elderly couple, but they have an explanation:

Officers were trying to serve a warrant for a man wanted on drug charges. The address listed on the paperwork was 4042. The Minton’s home is 4048, with both house numbers clearly marked.

But Major Mark Robinett of the Marion County Sheriff’s Department, who is in charge of warrant sweeps, said he was told that officers had a difficult time reading the addresses because of overcast skies.

I've heard a lot of weak excuses for botched drug raids, but this is just classic. As is often the case in such scenarios, the explanation serves only to make police sound even more confused and incompetent than they already did.

Seriously, if you can't even see what you're doing, then don't burst into private homes with your guns drawn. A word of advice to the Mintons: you should sue these people silly. The admission that their vision was obstructed at the time of the raid, though utterly disingenuous, is tantamount to gross negligence. I'd just love to see them on the stand trying to explain this.