Economists Pan Drug War, Favor Liberalization, Study Says Auburn, AL: Most American economists believe that current drug prohibition strategies are ineffective, and favor liberalizing American drug policies, according to a study published in the April issue of the journal Econ Journal Watch. The study's author writes: "There does seem to be broad ... consensus on three general matters. First, most economists found the current policy to be somewhat ineffective, very ineffective, or harmful. Second, most economists agree that the current policy should be changed. Third, most economists agree that the policy should be changed in the general direction of liberalization. Disagreement is generally based on the direction and degree of liberalization, [including] ... downsizing of the drug war, decriminalization, reallocation from criminal prosecution to treatment, qualified or limited legalization, sin taxes, and outright legalization." A previous opinion survey of economists in 1995 found 58 percent to be in favor of changing policy in the general direction of decriminalization. A 2001 economic analysis of American drug policy by the National Resource Council determined that America spends twice as much money annually to combat illegal drugs as it spent fighting the Persian Gulf War, yet there is no evidence indicating that existing policies are either working or cost-effective. "It is unconscionable for this country to continue to carry out a public policy of this magnitude and cost without any way of knowing whether, and to what extent, it is having the desired result," the study's author concluded. For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre or Paul Armentano of the NORML Foundation at (202) 483-5500. Full text of the study, entitled "Prohibition vs. Legalization: Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Drug Policy?" is available online at: http://www.econjournalwatch.org
You'll never get this past the Puritans. The *war* on drugs has been changed into one where drug law enforcement is financing policing ( the confiscation of all assets, etc) so they made it a bit harder to get all police to support this as well.
The war on drugs comes far from financing all of the police departments in the country. Mostly, the confiscated funds languish in Federal accounts to be used to pay off informants who give faulty, incorrect, or just made up "evidence" to bust some other dealer who will in turn be paid to give up his upline. The people who end up doing the majority of the time are smaller players who don't know enough about the organization to plea bargain. BTW, in a world without prohibition, the police could get back to being "peace officers" who are welcomed into 99% of the households in America, INCLUDING the ghettos where even the police don't patrol after dark today. We could forge a new relationship between the police and the people they are supposed to protect and the police could go after criminals, you know, the people trying to hurt us or steal from us. Ending prohibition will dramatically decrease the danger that our police face on our streets day after day and will improve their chances of catching the people who perpetrate the remaining violence. Check out the website (google) for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. It is a group of ex- and current law enforcement officers who are aware of how much better our society would be with a regulated system of drug distribution. L.E.A.P.
I didn't mean to imply the war on drugs is funding police departments entirely, it's that even a small contribution to funding makes it harder for those at the top to switch views. I've heard plenty of police on the street interviews saying we should legalize. The way congress and the presidency is setup to favor rural voters means a progressive/libertarian cause like this is a lost hope for a while, but the appeal of abortion rights is one or two supreme court justices away.
