End The War On Drugs, Say Nobel Prize-Winning Economists

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
The decades-long global war on drugs has failed and it's time to shift the focus from mass incarceration to public health and human rights, according to a new report endorsed by five Nobel Prize-winning economists.

The report, titled "Ending the Drug Wars" and put together by the London School of Economics' IDEAS center, looks at the high costs and unintended consequences of drug prohibitions on public health and safety, national security and law enforcement.

"The pursuit of a militarized and enforcement-led global ‘war on drugs’ strategy has produced enormous negative outcomes and collateral damage," says the 82-page report. "These include mass incarceration in the US, highly repressive policies in Asia, vast corruption and political destabilization in Afghanistan and West Africa, immense violence in Latin America, an HIV epidemic in Russia, an acute global shortage of pain medication and the propagation of systematic human rights abuses around the world."

The report urges the world's governments to reframe their drug policies around treatment and harm reduction rather than prosecution and prison.

It is also aimed at the United Nations General Assembly, which is preparing to convene a special session on drug policy in 2016. The hope is to push the U.N. to encourage countries to develop their own policies, because the report declares the current one-size-fits-all approach has not proved to be effective.

"The UN must recognize its role is to assist states as they pursue best-practice policies based on scientific evidence, not undermine or counteract them," said Danny Quah, a professor of economics at LSE and a contributor to the report. "If this alignment occurs, a new and effective international regime can emerge that effectively tackles the global drug problem."

In addition to contributions from Quah and a dozen other foreign and drug policy experts, the report has been endorsed by five past winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics: Kenneth Arrow (1972), Sir Christopher Pissarides (2010), Thomas Schelling (2005), Vernon Smith (2002) and Oliver Williamson (2009). Also signing on to the report's foreword are a number of current and former international leaders, including George Shultz, secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan; Nick Clegg, British deputy prime minister; and Javier Solana, the former EU high representative for common foreign and security policy.

Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina, who has announced that his government may present a plan to legalize production of marijuana and opium poppies by the end of 2014, has also publicly backed the report. Molina plans to discuss the report at the U.N.

A recent Pew survey suggests that Americans may be ready to refocus the U.S. end of the drug war, with 67 percent favoring policies that would provide drug treatment.

“The drug war’s failure has been recognized by public health professionals, security experts, human rights authorities and now some of the world’s most respected economists,” said John Collins, the International Drug Policy Project coordinator at LSE IDEAS. “Leaders need to recognize that toeing the line on current drug control strategies comes with extraordinary human and financial costs to their citizens and economies.”

Read LSE's full report here.

---------------------------------------

I think it is wishful thinking on many of these peoples parts, if they think that certain politicians, the DEA, and many anti-drug groups are going to even consider most of what these economists are saying. But one can only hope.

Link
 

Deadjester451

Junior Member
Feb 6, 2014
13
0
0
I think its a sad day when society consider fighting drugs is just a win or lose situation. Its one of those things in life like many things are, that are just a constant. With new generations being born, its a issue for each in turn. The war on drugs should never end as long as the issue exists and if anything, it should evolve. There is more then one level to fight it on and other options should be add to what we are already doing.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I think the world is finally coming around to the idea that the war on drugs has been a complete failure. Hopefully within the next few years or decades a lot of these draconian policies are pulled back and with it less people in prison, less violence associated with the black market, and less tax money wasted fighting a winless war.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Why is the opinion of nobel winning economists relevant to topics other than economics?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,179
30,643
136
I think its a sad day when society consider fighting drugs is just a win or lose situation. Its one of those things in life like many things are, that are just a constant. With new generations being born, its a issue for each in turn. The war on drugs should never end as long as the issue exists and if anything, it should evolve. There is more then one level to fight it on and other options should be add to what we are already doing.
Or, parents can raise their kids properly by teaching them about drugs before it is too late and expecting the rest of society to compensate.
 

lamedude

Golden Member
Jan 14, 2011
1,206
10
81
Wouldn't that put all the for profit prisons out of business? That can't be good for the economy.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Nobel Prize winning who?? Just because some idiot won the Nobel prize mean what exactly.....
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Because it negatively impacts our economy?

That's not what the linked paper says.

I agree that the war on drugs is a failure, but this really has nothing to do with their area of expertise.

"The pursuit of a militarized and enforcement-led global ‘war on drugs’ strategy has produced enormous negative outcomes and collateral damage," says the 82-page report. "These include mass incarceration in the US, highly repressive policies in Asia, vast corruption and political destabilization in Afghanistan and West Africa, immense violence in Latin America, an HIV epidemic in Russia, an acute global shortage of pain medication and the propagation of systematic human rights abuses around the world."
The report urges the world's governments to reframe their drug policies around treatment and harm reduction rather than prosecution and prison.
These things might all be true (or not true), but have nothing to do with economics. The opinion of an economist on violence in latin america or hiv rates in russia is no more relevant than their opinion on NFL football.


I know they like to throw around "nobel prize winners" attached to some paper because they want it to have more credibility, but to me a nobel prize doesn't add any more credibility to someone outside their area of expertise.
 

positivedoppler

Golden Member
Apr 30, 2012
1,137
226
106
I think its a sad day when society consider fighting drugs is just a win or lose situation. Its one of those things in life like many things are, that are just a constant. With new generations being born, its a issue for each in turn. The war on drugs should never end as long as the issue exists and if anything, it should evolve. There is more then one level to fight it on and other options should be add to what we are already doing.

OP threw out a whole bunch of reason why the UN-winnable war on drugs has to end. How it's doing far more destruction than good. Care to offer some solid rebuttal or you're just going to float some vague notion of an opinion with no solution?

WARs are meant to be won or lost and wars are meant to create casualties. As long as the war on drug exist those who suffer the most are those who live in low income neighborhoods and impoverished nations. Look at people who's live and neighborhood are wrecked by the endless war on drugs and tell them they should continue to endure the cross-fire so people like you can feel good about themselves. Who are we protecting here and at who's expense? The white collar kids living in the suburban neighborhood who will probably grow up experimenting with pot anway.
 

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2014
6,894
8
0
Have you lost your mind?? If we end the war on drugs, then we can't fill up the prisons with non-white folks.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,179
30,643
136
That's not what the linked paper says.

I agree that the war on drugs is a failure, but this really has nothing to do with their area of expertise.


These things might all be true (or not true), but have nothing to do with economics. The opinion of an economist on violence in latin america or hiv rates in russia is no more relevant than their opinion on NFL football.


I know they like to throw around "nobel prize winners" attached to some paper because they want it to have more credibility, but to me a nobel prize doesn't add any more credibility to someone outside their area of expertise.
Maybe not but we throw a lot of tax money into it and they can certainly help explain why that money is wasted:

The pursuit of a ‘drug-free world’ is underpinned by the goal of eventually reducing illicit supplies to zero. One can argue whether policymakers pursue this as a genuine or merely an aspirational goal. Regardless, articulating such broad strategic goals has clear and substantial impacts on international bureaucracies when deciding priorities and allocating resources. This has resulted in a drastic overemphasis on policies aimed at suppressing the supply of illicit substances and encouraging the pursuit of highly repressive demand reduction policies. These extend a full spectrum of policy measures, from military intervention, through aerial spraying, alternative livelihoods, border enforcement and criminalisation of consumption (as a means to deprive supply of its demand). Underpinning this strategy, however, is a fundamental policy paradox. In a world where demand remains relatively constant,8 suppressing supply can have short-run price effects.9 However, in a footloose industry like illicit drugs, these price increases incentivise a new rise in supply, via shifting commodity supply chains. This then feeds back into lower prices and an eventual return to a market equilibrium similar to that which existed prior to the supply-reduction intervention.10
 

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,346
1
0
In a 2011 interview, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that legalization is “not likely to work” because “there is just too much money in it.” Clinton was talking about cartels, but the same holds true for the legal industries that owe their profit margins, market shares, and—in some cases—very existence to the war on drugs.

Corrections Corp. of America (CCA), the country’s largest private prison company, has donated almost $4.5 million to political campaigns and dropped another $18 million on lobbying in the last two decades.

Since 1989, addiction services trade groups and individual companies have donated a combined $869,405 to political campaigns and spent almost $5 million lobbying in order to secure direct and indirect government funding of addiction services.

...the booze industry has been working to subvert drug policy reform for decades, at least going back to the early 90s when the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) FOIA’d the donation records for the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and found that it had accepted large donations from Jim Beam and Anheuser Busch.

...the private prison industry uses three strategies to influence public policy: lobbying, direct campaign contributions, and networking. The three main companies have contributed $835,514 to federal candidates and over $6 million to state politicians. They have also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on direct lobbying efforts. CCA has spent over $900,000 on federal lobbying and GEO spent anywhere from $120,000 to $199,992 in Florida alone during a short three-month span this year.

Its not about drugs.

Its not about prisons.

Its about who is giving money to politicians.

Uno
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
Economists (especially these guys in the OP) are very very well educated on the subject of the economy and all things that affect the economy. They have already pointed out how incredibly destructive the War on Drugs has been to our overall economy and to society. You don't just get a Noble Peace Prize or these type awards for well, just being nice and popular, then again I don't think some of you understand that.
 

Deadjester451

Junior Member
Feb 6, 2014
13
0
0
Or, parents can raise their kids properly by teaching them about drugs before it is too late and expecting the rest of society to compensate.

Many parents do, but that only goes so far when their children have free will or issues come along and they look to drugs as a escape or that know it all part of us as teens tells us we know better. Parents can only do so much for us and after that its just up to us.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Economists (especially these guys in the OP) are very very well educated on the subject of the economy and all things that affect the economy. They have already pointed out how incredibly destructive the War on Drugs has been to our overall economy

Yet that's not what the paper says or is about. Again, I don't necesarrily disagree with the premise, but having people with economics nobel prizes sign off on it doesn't add any value or credibility, and doesn't make it any better.

and to society. You don't just get a Noble Peace Prize or these type awards for well, just being nice and popular, then again I don't think some of you understand that.

Actually, you can get a nobel just for being popular, our idiot in chief demonstrated that.
 

Deadjester451

Junior Member
Feb 6, 2014
13
0
0
OP threw out a whole bunch of reason why the UN-winnable war on drugs has to end. How it's doing far more destruction than good. Care to offer some solid rebuttal or you're just going to float some vague notion of an opinion with no solution?

WARs are meant to be won or lost and wars are meant to create casualties. As long as the war on drug exist those who suffer the most are those who live in low income neighborhoods and impoverished nations. Look at people who's live and neighborhood are wrecked by the endless war on drugs and tell them they should continue to endure the cross-fire so people like you can feel good about themselves. Who are we protecting here and at who's expense? The white collar kids living in the suburban neighborhood who will probably grow up experimenting with pot anway.

Just because they choose to call it a war, doesn't mean it is a war. Thats like saying the church is fighting a war on sin, or a war on obesity, etc, etc. With each generation its starts over again and again, these are not something you win so much as you keep trying your best. For we are dealing with people and the same lessons that each generation that learned it previously has to be learned again and again with the next. You just try to manage it as best you can and hope that society can hold it back and one day it can do whatever changes it needs to do so that we hopefully out grow such things.

Remember Platziptz Park which later got the nick name Needle Park? How did that work out, drugs were legalized there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platzspitz_park

When that happened I read at the time that they said they lost a whole generation that is now on Methadone. Who is paying for that? Are you telling me there was no casualties there? That it only effected the users and not their families or tax payers?

And it does not just affect the poor, though they are the hardest hit and with a little thinking, the stuff that you sited is part of the problem, you can't JUST do the "War" on drugs, like many issues there is more then just one aspect to it and you have to fight it on many levels, you have to start working on the core of society.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Remember Platziptz Park which later got the nick name Needle Park? How did that work out, drugs were legalized there.

Drugs were not legalized- illegal drug use was tolerated for a time. There is a difference.

Legalized drugs means they're available through retail outlets, not from underworld sources at inflated prices & unknown purity. Legalized drugs mean a person can get help w/o getting a criminal record. Legalized drugs mean tax revenues to support rehab programs. Legalized drugs mean putting murderous cartels out of business.

Obviously, that's not what you think it means at all.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Why is the opinion of nobel winning economists relevant to topics other than economics?


Because it isn't uncommon for productive members of society, who otherwise follow the law, who contribute to the economy by working, paying taxes, and not being in prison (which costs a lot) are often incarcerated because of non-violent drug offenses.

We tried prohibition once, we went all in and amended the Constitution. In about 13 years we changed things back because it was obvious prohibition doesn't work and causes more problems than it solves. Somehow common sense that we had just ~80 years ago is completely lost today.