Distorted Incentives: The Failure of the War on Drugs and a New Way Forward
What is preventing us from formulating the optimum drug policy?
While President Richard Nixon declared a "War on Drugs" in 1971, federal drug enforcement policy has remained relatively unchanged since the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. In other words, our drug policy is about to celebrate its 100 year anniversary.
In a provocative talk at The Nantucket Project, a festival of ideas on Nantucket, MA, Nadelmann surveyed an array of alternative policy options, along a spectrum "from the most punitive to the most free market." So what do these options look like?
On one side you have what Nadelmann describes as "the Saudi Arabia/Singapore cut-off their heads, whip 'em, pull out their finger nails, drug test them with no cause, lock them up in prison camps" TK. On the other end -of the spectrum you have the free market policy with "almost no controls, almost no taxation...Milton Friedman's wet dream." Nadelmann points out that this was essentially the policy for cigarettes in the 1960s.
So the question is how do we move along this spectrum and find the optimal drug control policy?
According to Nadelmann, the optimal drug control policy seeks to do two things: reduce the harms associated with drug use (addiction, crime, etc). It also tries to reduce the negative consequences of government action in this area. To put this one neat sentence, as Nadelmann does in his talk, an optimal policy would be
To reduce the role of criminalization and the criminal justice system in drug control to the maximum extent consistent with protecting public safety and health.
So what is preventing us from reaching consensus on this issue and formulating the optimum policy?
Over the course of history our policy has never been guided by a rational analysis.
Nadelmann asks: "Does anyone here actually think that some early version of the Institute of Medicine evaluated the relative risks of drugs 100 years ago" and then decided which ones should be legal and which ones should be illegal?
As Nadelmann points out, our laws have nothing to do with actual risk, and everything to do with who uses which drugs, and who we perceive to use which drugs.
For instance, who were the principal opiate users in the U.S. in the 1870s?
"Middle aged white women by the millions took opium," Nadelmann points out. These women had nothing else available to deal with aches and pains. So why didn't people think to make a law to outlaw opium? "Nobody wanted to put grandma or auntie behind bars," Nadelmann says.
However, when Chinese immigrants came to the U.S. and brought their tradition of smoking opium with them, that's when we see the first prohibition laws pop up in Nevada and California.
These laws, like anti-cocaine and -marijuana laws, Nadelmann argues, were simply based on fear, not fact-based analysis.
Watch the video here:
International poker champion Liv Boeree teaches decision-making for Big Think Edge.
The way that you think about stress can actually transform the effect that it has on you – and others.
- Stress is contagious, and the higher up in an organization you are the more your stress will be noticed and felt by others.
- Kelly McGonigal teaches "Reset your mindset to reduce stress" for Big Think Edge.
- Subscribe to Big Think Edge before we launch on March 30 to get 20% off monthly and annual memberships.
Tracking project establishes northern Argentina is wintering ground of Swainson's hawks
- Watch these six dots move across the map and be moved yourself: this is a story about coming of age, discovery, hardship, death and survival.
- Each dot is a tag attached to the talon of a Swainson's Hawk. We follow them on their very first migration, from northern California all the way down to Argentina.
- After one year, only one is still alive.
These quick bursts of inspiration will brighten your day in 10 minutes or less.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.