SO FAR this year, about 4000 people have died in Mexico’s drugs war – a horrifying toll. If only a good fairy could wave a magic wand and make all illegal drugs disappear, the world would be a better place.
Dream on. Recreational drug use is as old as humanity, and has not been stopped by the most draconian laws. Given that drugs are here to stay, how do we limit the harm they do?
The evidence suggests most of the problems stem not from drugs themselves, but from the fact that they are illegal. The obvious answer, then, is to make them legal.
The argument most often deployed in support of the status quo is that keeping drugs illegal curbs drug use among the law-abiding majority, thereby reducing harm overall. But a closer look reveals that this really doesn’t stand up. In the UK, as in many countries, the real clampdown on drugs started in the late 1960s, yet government statistics show that the number of heroin or cocaine addicts seen by the health service has grown ever since – from around 1000 people per year then, to 100,000 today. It is a pattern that has been repeated the world over.
A second approach to the question is to look at whether fewer people use drugs in countries with stricter drug laws. In 2008, the World Health Organization looked at 17 countries and found no such correlation. The US, despite its punitive drug policies, has one of the highest levels of drug use in the world (PLoS Medicine, vol 5, p e141).
A third strand of evidence comes from what happens when a country softens its drug laws, as Portugal did in 2001. While dealing remains illegal in Portugal, personal use of all drugs has been decriminalised. The result? Drug use has stayed roughly constant, but ill health and deaths from drug taking have fallen. “Judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalisation framework has been a resounding success,” states a recent report by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC.
When the evidence is so completely obvious regarding the need to legalize marijuana and regulate hard drugs, it is hard to avoid invoking conspiracy theory as to why we continue to maintain prohibition. You’d think some sectors of our economy are in such need of more arrests, more prisoners, more prisons, and more crime and mayhem that they would actively oppose changing our drug policies to protect their profits. You’d think some sectors of our economy would be at such a competitive disadvantage against a grow-your-own medicine / food / fuel / fiber / plastics plant that most couldn’t survive if we ended prohibition. You’d think that some sectors of our government that are unwilling or unable to help the disaffected poor need the underground economy and jobs market provided by illegal drugs.
But that would be just crazy conspiracy theory talk, right?

It’s a shame more folks weren’t brought up like Christiaan. Clearly, using new government math, 2+2=something other than 4, and if it walks, sounds, smells and looks like a duck, it is a goose.
Further, since there is now an infinite number of answers to the simple question of what is 2+2, it will take a federal commission to study it, economists to deliver opinions on it, and finally the press must weigh in with a panel of talking heads to deliever the opinions of various people we don’t know to discover the truth. Such things are the first step in the process of our government’s firm denial of the result, thus perpetuating the war on ducks and the number 4.
The prohibition of 1937 was a conspiracy theory unto itself, as was the handling of the Shaffer report, the CIA/cocaine/Contra affair, and a myriad of other incidents since the war against cannabis started…..I was brought up old school, and I was always taught, that if it sounds like a duck, acts like a duck, and looks like a duck….Well chances are its probably a duck! So in this case, looks sounds, and acts like a conspiracy….. seems appropriate!
The government is stubborn. Once they make a mistake, they hardly ever retract it. My girlfriend is Dr. Jody R. because of a mistake made by the MN govt. She actually only has a double…
or is it triple masters degree.