ARNOLD'S BRAVE CALL FOR A POT DEBATE: INTERVIEW WITH ETHAN NADELMANN

Arnold Schwarzenegger proved last week (May 5) he's not a girly-man
when it comes to the debate over whether marijuana should be
legalized and taxed in California.

Gov. Arnold called for a large-scale study of the consequences of
legalizing pot for recreational use in California and suggested that
the study might benefit from looking at the effects of drug
legalization moves already made by European countries. It's true that
Schwarzenegger is a lame duck and that his politically daring call
was driven largely by his bankrupt state's search for new sources of
tax revenue.

But Arnold still earned high praise from drug-law reformer Ethan
Nadelmann for doing what most politicians are too chicken to ever do
- -- go on record as being in favor of honestly discussing the pros and
cons of ending drug prohibition. Nadelmann, who believes drug
prohibition has failed miserably wherever it's been tried, is
executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance (drugpolicy.org),
which promotes alternatives to the federal government's failed war on
drugs. I talked to him by phone May 8.

Q: This talk about legalizing marijuana and taxing it -- is it merely
a result of the dire budget problems states like California are having?

A: That is the single most important thing driving it now. Why was
alcohol prohibition repealed so quickly in the 1930s? People were
pointing to the crime and the violence, the corruption, the violation
of civil liberties, the disrespect for the law, the people dying from
bad liquor - all those reasons were motivating people to call for
repeal. But, ultimately, the first, second and third reasons were the
Depression, the Depression, the Depression.

Similarly today, people are looking at the violence in Mexico, where
marijuana is a major source of revenue for the drug gangs. There are
a lot of things going on, but clearly it is the recession, the
recession, the fear of depression that are the number 1, 2 and 3
reasons for somebody like Schwarzenegger.

Now mind you, it's all in a context: I don't think they would be
calling for this if we had not seen a very significant jump in public
support for taxing and legalizing marijuana.

Q: For those who don't know what your official position on U.S. drug
policy is, please spell it out.

A: Basically it boils down to three elements. The first one is that
we believe that we should move in a direction of treating marijuana
more or less like alcohol. Secondly, we basically believe that nobody
should be punished for possessing a small amount of any drug simply
for their own use, as long as they are not hurting anyone else, like
getting behind the wheel of a car. Thirdly, although my organization
has an internal debate about whether to legalize or how far to go on
the other drugs, our basic view is that we need a vigorous debate in
this area and we need to move in the direction of taking as much of
the drug market from the underground and bringing it above ground so
it can be effectively regulated.

Q: The model being the way we changed from prohibiting alcohol?

A: With marijuana, that's clearly the model. If you look, for
example, at what five countries in Europe and now Canada are doing,
which is allowing heroin addicts to obtain their heroin from clinics,
that's not really legalization, but it's poking a hole in
prohibition. It is providing legal access to a drug that addicts
would otherwise obtain illegally from the black market. I don't think
we are likely to see a 21st Amendment repealing drug prohibition. I
think it is going to be more of an incremental process where we find
ways to remove more and more of this from the black market.

Q: If Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to learn from the Europeans, what
will he find that would help him make a persuasive case for legalization?

A: The most persuasive evidence will come from the Netherlands. The
Netherlands changed their law in 1976. Their sort of coffee-shop
distribution system for cannabis evolved over a decade. Remember, the
Dutch have not fully legalized cannabis. It's essentially legal at
the retail level but it's still illegal at the wholesale side. But
basically any adult who wants to buy cannabis -- by which I mean
marijuana or hash -- can go into a coffee shop and buy it. If that
coffee shop tries to sell them white powder stuff or sell to underage
people, it'll be shut down by the authorities.

What they'll find is that the levels of cannabis use in The
Netherlands, both among young people and others, is lower than it is
in the United States. What they'll also find is that the percentage
of young people who use cannabis and then go on to try quote-unquote
"harder" drugs is less than it is in the United States. The Dutch can
claim successfully that they have essentially segregated the cannabis
market from the other drug markets. What they'll also find from is
that the use of other quote-unquote "harder" drugs is dramatically
lower than it is in the United States. Their problem with HIV AIDS
among drug users and with overdose fatalities and even with the
overall number of people using these drugs is dramatically lower than
it is in the United States.

Q: What would Schwarze-negger find in Europe that would argue against
the legalization of drugs in the United States?

A: The evidence you have from Europe is mostly not about
legalization. It's mostly about decriminalization. The Netherlands is
the one exception, where cannabis can basically be bought and sold
openly in regulated shops. He would find evidence that when you
rolled back the criminal law you don't all of the sudden have an
explosion in drug use; you don't have all sorts of other problems.

Q: In Europe are they taxing drugs like marijuana or heroin the way
we tax alcohol?

A: No. The closest is The Netherlands, where the government has found
innovative ways to insure that the people involved in selling
cannabis in the coffee shops do pay some taxes.

Q: Obviously, there are many people who disagree with you 180
degrees. What's the weakest part of your argument for legalization of drugs?

A: The area where the evidence is not conclusive and where people can
legitimately disagree, is what would be the consequences if you
actually made not just marijuana but a whole range of other drugs
more legally available? That is what I would call the "$64,000
Question" in the drug legalization debate.

I believe -- as do millions of others, and not just libertarians --
that even if the drugs that are now illegal were to be made legal --
whether like alcohol or in some more restrictive way --the increase
in drug use would minimal, whereas the savings and the benefits in
terms of the reduction of crime, violence, corruption and other
things would be dramatic. But there are those people who believe that
if we made these drugs legal you would see drug abuse increase
tenfold. I'm convinced they are wrong, but I cannot prove they are wrong.