According to a new report by the Reason Foundation, a coalition comprised of analysts and advocacy organizations, it’s time to stop prohibition and legalize and regulate drugs. The authors say that the drug war, which has lasted for nearly a century, has not been able to reduce violent crime or overdose deaths.
The new report of 84 pages, which was released on Tuesday, has been produced in partnership with National Coalition for Drug Legalization, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and Law Enforcement Action Partnership. The report covers a wide range of drug issues. It argues that “a legalized and regulated market is likely to result in less dangerous outcomes both for society as a whole and for individuals who choose drugs.”
Geoffrey Lawrence is the author of the report, and research director at the Reason Foundation. He told Marijuana Moment, “I believe America is at a crossingroads.” The drug war has failed in achieving any of the goals that were espoused, such as keeping drugs away from kids, preventing overdoses, or simply increasing freedom for humans.
Lawrence said that “all of these metrics have gone in the wrong direction under the current approach towards drugs.” “So maybe there is an appetite to discuss how a regulated marketplace might work better for achieving all of those things.”
The report, which was described in the preface by NCDL’s founder Veronica Wright, as a “living” document that will “change as new information and data arrives,” discusses many aspects of drug legalization. These include repealing the federal Controlled Substances Act, and addressing various financial, regulatory, restorative-justice, and medical concerns.
Wright states that “Many conversations and efforts have been made to detail whywe should legallyize drugs,” but “not enough effort has yet been made to show people howwe can successfully legalize drug in the current regime.”
The report makes a strong recommendation to eliminate prohibition, and one chapter suggests that the Controlled Substances Act be eliminated. Written by two Cato Institute authors, this chapter argues advocates make a mistake by trying to create excessive policies.
It says that “as demonstrated by recent state-level discussions over marijuana legalization,” people are concerned about the of legalizing drugs. They suggest regulations, taxes, new agencies and more to convince voters – and themselves – that they are serious about legalizing drugs. But this focus on the “right way” misses its mark.
Jeffrey Miron, Erin Partin and the Cato authors conclude that repealing federal laws that differentiate between drugs and other products is best. There is no reason for government to create rules and regulations for drug sales. Markets will take care of themselves when necessary. The best outcome is to let the market resolve a problem that the government has created.
Lawrence, from the libertarian Reason Foundation, said that the report is “a compilation” of the opinions of the contributing authors. Lawrence acknowledged that not all authors would agree with a laissez faire approach.
This section, written by Lawrence and LEAP cofounder Howard Wooldridge, suggests state medical and adult use marijuana laws, as a kind of blueprint on how other drugs could be regulated. It outlines best practices in production, lab testing and packaging, labeling and advertising, tracking products, and preventing the sale of minors.
They write: “Each of these components could be duplicated and extended to the other drugs in order to create a secure and safe supply channel for individuals who seek drug use, regardless of whether it is legal or not.” As with cannabis, the state could license suppliers and conduct background checks on those who work or own these licensees. They could also require training.
They note that some changes may be needed. They may set limits on the purchase or possession of harder drugs by considering how much of a substance could cause an overdose, or they might require that drugs are consumed at the site instead. The chapter notes that Oregon’s commercial psilocybin market, for instance–which they describe as “one model for other states that choose to facilitate a commercial supply chain for safe consumption”–requires that the substance “only be administered by a trained and licensed professional in a clinical setting” and that “consumers are never permitted to take psilocybin home for unsupervised use.”
Jeffrey Singer, a senior fellow and Arizona surgeon at the Cato Institute who writes in a section about drug therapy, says that substance abuse is a choice with risks that should be treated accordingly.
Singer says that doctors often recommend harm reduction strategies to patients who are at risk of harm due to lifestyle choices such as obesity, poor diet, or risky behaviors. People who use drugs, too, should have access to harm reduction resources, such as syringe service, overdose prevention center, and safe supply program, which Singer describes as programs that give people access to pharmaceutical-grade, unadulterated drugs to avoid withdrawal.
Singer concludes that “drug use, drug dependence, and substance abuse disorder are personal choices which, when made responsibly, don’t harm or threaten others.” In a free society they should be treated like any other lifestyle choice, with respect to autonomy and an emphasis placed on harm reduction.
Lawrence and Wright predict that the state governments will continue acting ahead of federal government in creating regulated markets for drugs currently illegal. For the sake of public safety and health, they recommend creating regulatory boards with “authority to govern licensed business”. However, the section warns against government manufacturing or selling directly, citing risks of federal prosecution and asset seizure.
They also demand strict standards for product testing and manufacturing to ensure that the products are free of adulterants and contain only ingredients listed. The pair recommends that all batches be quarantined with the wholesaler until they have obtained clean test results, assuring consumers the batch is free from potentially harmful contaminants.
Wright and Jacob James Rich (a policy analyst at the Reason Foundation) are against restorative justice as a way to repair the harms caused by the drug-war. They also oppose the approach that many states have taken with the legalization of cannabis. They advise against funding community reinvestment initiatives and restorative justice programs with revenue generated by cannabis taxes.
They write that “this approach only drives up the prices for consumers who are legally buying cannabis”, “discourages people from participating in a legal and regulated marketplace.”
They suggest an alternative: individual reparations. They write that “according to tort law traditions it is arguably appropriate for victims to be compensated through the payment of financial damages.” However, they say it’s not clear how policymakers should go about this compensation.
The pair argues that “in communities where the drug war has been disproportionately devastating, individual-level compensatory is actually a community investment” because the residents who will benefit from it, in turn, spend money locally, and build a better neighborhood. In the event that the drug war was conducted in a discriminatory manner, awarding damages directly to those who were harmed is the most fair and will bring about racial equality.
The section does not mention social equity licensing, although it is referred to in a footnote that refers to an April study conducted by Lawrence of the Reason Foundation, who found social equity programs do “not help victims of the drug-war” but instead have “unintentionally” created “new versions of the War on Drugs.”
Lawrence and Wright, in the report conclusion urge a compassionate drug-use approach that stresses the autonomy of the consumer. They write, “We need to return to a culture that values the independence and freedom of individuals to live their lives as they choose as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.” This includes respecting other people’s choices to experiment with substances other than alcohol, and inculcating a culture that promotes responsible use.
The section states that education about substances should, for instance, “balance relative risks with potential benefits or cultural contextualizations of their usage.” For “individuals who succumb and cannot balance their responsibilities while using drugs, society should extend empathy while encouraging recovery services like we do with alcohol.”
The authors say that we cannot ignore the human nature. If enough people want to buy a commodity, someone is going to find a way of supplying it even if government labels it as contraband. Illicit markets have spread across America.
A separate report by the International Coalition on Drug Policy Reform and Environmental Justice was released earlier this month. It attacked the global war on drugs from a completely different perspective. The report argued that prohibition has destroyed critical ecosystems and undermined climate change efforts, and trapped vulnerable populations in poverty and prosecution.
The coalition includes Health Poverty Action (HPA), LEAP Europe (LEAP), SOS Amazonia (SOS Amazonia), the Transnational Institute TNI and the Washington Office on Latin America WOLA. The new Reason report is primarily focused on the United States. However, there are also papers that represent Bolivia, Brazil Colombia, Myanmar and the Netherlands.
The drug war continues, but both reports reflect a global shift in attitudes towards controlled substances. In a report published by a United Nations agency in September, the agency highlighted the human rights concerns that have been raised in relation to the war on drugs. It urged member states to move away from punitive policies and towards promoting public health. It said that treating drugs as a crime is only causing more harm.
In June, UN experts and leaders reiterated these points as part of World Drug Day.
The UN Chief Executives Board (which represents 31 UN agencies, including the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, UNODC), has adopted a 2019 position that states must pursue health-oriented, science-based drug policies, “including decriminalization for drug possession by individuals.”
Recently, Latin American and Caribbean countries agreed to rethink their drug war. According to a joint declaration issued by 19 countries, the current punitive approach has not achieved the expected results when combating the global drug problem.
A recent report from the organization Harm Reduction International revealed that wealthy nations gave almost $1 billion to advance the global drug battle.
A key House committee will consider ending marijuana testing for federal job applicants and lifting the D.C. cannabis sales ban
The post Coalition Of Advocacy Groups Releases ‘Drug Legalization Handbook,’ With Policy Ideas For Post-Prohibition World first appeared on Marijuana Moment.
