Legalize Which Drugs?

by ex-Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper

Who do you want "regulating" the drug market? The druglords of Afghanistan? The Taliban and Al Qaeda who reap and turn opium profits into weapons of terror?

The cartels of Latin America who've rendered Mexico a violent and failing state, and whose drug gangs have made deep incursions into U.S. cities?

The traffickers who ply their trade on street corners across the U.S., including for years our beloved Pike Place Market?

You see, there's only one choice. We either allow the $500 billion illicit global drug industry to monopolize the commerce--and to decide who gets what drugs at what levels of potency and purity and at what price--or we end prohibition. And turn the regulation of currently illegal drugs over to an admittedly imperfect government.

So, in answer to the question, Legalize which drugs? All of them, every last one. In fact, the more dangerous, the more sinister and frightening the drug (and sensational its media coverage), the greater the justification for our government to step in and regulate the entire enterprise. It's a far from perfect solution but an infinitely better approach than the current "War on Drugs."

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition takes no stand on a particular regulatory model, but here's mine: The government would issue hard-to-get, easy-to-lose licenses to a new breed of pharmacist. It would control all aspects of growing and manufacturing, quality assurance, packaging, pricing, and sales. Personally, I would ban all forms of marketing (something we probably should have done with alcohol and tobacco; no one will convince me that those two industries have not spent billions targeting our young people, grooming them as future consumers).

That hard-to-get license? A prospective licensee would have to undergo a rigorous background investigation, successfully complete an intensive education and training program, and be made to understand that selling to a kid or otherwise violating any provision of the new drug laws would result in revocation of the license. The possible end to one's livelihood has helped keep liquor distributors in line for years.

By the way, not to seem too defensive, I've been arguing along these lines for decades, in both San Diego and Seattle. It's true I didn't stand atop the old Public Safety Building with a bullhorn and call for an end to prohibition. Politics clearly plays a role in how much we're willing to say about what we really believe. I wish that weren't true, but it is. Still, as a cop, I took this (essential) position in classes I taught at San Diego State and at the University of Washington. I advocated an end to the drug war, and for drug legalization at the Cascadia Mayor's Conference in the late nineties. And I was asked by the respected leader of a national drug reform organization to "tone down" my public arguments for fear of frightening prospective converts.

I say all this not to pat myself on the back but in recognition of the value of police and other leaders speaking out on the issue. When one does so, it grants permission for others to speak what they know to be the truth, namely that prohibition is an unmitigated failure. And that there are sensible alternatives.

Including one that seems at first blush, radical.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/normstamper/archives/164541.asp