TIME FOR LATIN AMERICA TO RECONSIDER PROHIBITION

On Tuesday, prohibitionists once again managed to hold a fraying line
when Californians defeated Proposition 19, which would have legalized
the production, sale and use of small quantities of marijuana by
people 21 or older.

Though disappointed by the results, Prop 19 supporters have
considerable cause for optimism.

The approximately 46 percent of those who approved the measure was
overweighted with younger voters.

For them, legalization is a matter of when, not if. That assessment
is supported by the ease with which Californians can already obtain
cannabis legally at hundreds of medical dispensaries in the state and
by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's recently signing into law a bill that
reduces the penalties for marijuana possession from a misdemeanor to
an infraction comparable to a traffic ticket.

The scent blowin' in the wind is unmistakable, and where California
leads, others will follow.

Among those presumably pleased by Prop 19's defeat in this contest
were Presidents Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and Felipe Calderon of
Mexico, both of whom had criticized the measure.

How, they asked, could they send peasant farmers in their countries
to jail for growing a crop they could legally sell in California? And
how could the United States, which has spent hundreds of billions of
dollars on its 40-year War on Drugs, even consider legalizing the
drug it has battled so vigorously? This opinion contrasts sharply
with that of their predecessors, Presidents Cesar Gaviria of Colombia
and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, who joined President Fernando Henrique
Cardoso of Brazil and a blue-ribbon assemblage of decision-makers in
recommending the decriminalization of marijuana in the 2009 Latin
American Commission on Drugs and Democracy.

As with any policy proposal, one must consider the ultimate goal. In
assessing the anti-drug effort known as Plan Colombia, critics note
that the billions of dollars the U.S. poured into that campaign did
not significantly decrease the shipment of cocaine to the United
States. Supporters of Plan Colombia, however, point out that the
Medellin and Cali cartels were dramatically crippled and dismantled
and that Medellin is no longer one of the most dangerous cities in the world.

If the objective of Plan Colombia was to decrease drug production --
or even consumption - the policy clearly failed.

If it was to make Colombia a safer country by dismantling the major
drug cartels, it may have succeeded.

What might legalizing marijuana achieve?

In 2009, law-enforcement officials made nearly 860,000 arrests in
this country for marijuana violations. Of those charged, nearly 88
percent were for possession only. Legalization supporters argue that
regulating and taxing marijuana would dramatically reduce costs
associated with arrests, adjudication and incarceration, and would
provide revenue that could be used for drug education and treatment.

They also argue that legalization would significantly shrink the
income of drug-trafficking organizations. The White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) long asserted that marijuana
provides at least 60 percent of the Mexican cartels' income.

The actual figure is likely lower than that - the ONDCP now calls
precise estimates "problematic"- but making the drug available
legally would clearly affect the cartels' operations, particularly if
other states were to follow California's lead.

Of course, the cartels would continue to traffic in cocaine, heroin
and methamphetamines and to engage in other crimes such as kidnapping
and extortion. Indeed, prohibitionist policies have enabled these
criminal gangs to amass such wealth, strength and sophistication that
the wounds legal marijuana would inflict would be severe, but not fatal.

We can't be certain about the full effects legalization would produce.

We do know that long-standing efforts to reduce production and
consumption by focusing on eradication, interdiction and
incarceration have failed, with tragic consequences. Had it passed,
Prop 19 wouldn't have solved all the grave problems associated with
drugs in California, Mexico, or anywhere else. Yet even bringing it
to a public vote - and, in the process, making it a topic of serious
national conversation - was a huge step in the right direction.

In October's XII Tuxtla Summit, a political discussion forum among
Mexico, Colombia, the seven Central American countries and the
Dominican Republic, there was a strong regional commitment to develop
coordinated policies to combat the problems associated with drugs and
transnational organized crime.

All heads of state and their representatives at the summit agreed -
as does President Obama - that drug trafficking is a shared problem
with shared responsibility and needs to be addressed with
coordinated, joint actions.

Instead of reprimanding the U.S. and Californians for Prop 19 - as
they did at the Tuxtla Summit - Latin American heads of state should
embrace and promote open debates about drug policy among
decision-makers, law-enforcement officials, health care
professionals, and the general public. A drug-free America, South or
North, is a fantasy, Zero Tolerance a destructive delusion.

Just saying no to prohibition will not solve all the problems caused
by the use of drugs, legal and illegal, but it is a necessary start.