FSU ECONOMISTS SPEAK

Has the time come for the federal government to cede the "war on drugs" to
America's state and local governments?

A powerful case for devolving critical drug policy -- choices of which
substances to forbid, whether to focus police on drug cases, imprisoning
vs. treating offenders -- has been made by two Florida State University
economists, David Rasmussen and Bruce Benson.

The common-sense case for fresh thinking has become overwhelming. Largely
because of drug cases, the United States, with 2,071,686 people behind
bars, had the world's highest incarceration rate in 2000. It cost the
country $26 billion that year to imprison 1.3 million nonviolent offenders
- -- including hundreds of thousands of drug offenders.

Rigid prohibition remains federal policy even as substantial experiments in
decoupling hard and soft drugs, especially decriminalizing possession of
small amounts of marijuana, are spreading in Europe and Canada. U.S.
Attorney General John Ashcroft is even cracking down hard on California
co-ops that administer marijuana to relieve the acute pain of terminally
ill persons -- a policy specifically approved by California voters in a
1996 referendum.

But it's not just authoritarian or moralistic ideology that drives harsh
drug policy. Our political system continues to condone stiff penalties,
long sentences -- even though there's ample evidence that treatment of
addiction, dollar for dollar, is far more effective. Indeed, a much-cited
RAND study which focused on cocaine use concluded that an added dollar on
drug treatment is seven times more cost- effective than a dollar more for
drug enforcement.

From 1968 to 1998, drug arrests per capita rose from 26 per 100,000
population to 615 per 100,000. Yet illicit drug use is still flourishing.
Why aren't we objecting?

Most blame is usually thrown at politically opportunistic legislators. But
legislators, argue Rasmussen and Benson in a law review article, respond
largely to interest groups. And there's a massive lobby out there pushing
the drug war -- the police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors and their allies
in federal enforcement bureaus.

Indeed, goes this argument, bureaucrats instinctively fight to expand their
funds and turf, using direct lobbying, policy manipulation and selective
release of information and misinformation. Back in 1937, enforcement
agencies pushed for the Marijuana Tax Act, which proved pivotal in the
subsequent criminalization of marijuana. The federal Bureau of Narcotics
fed the "reefer madness" of the time, claiming -- contrary to scientific
fact -- that marijuana causes insanity, incites rape and leads to delirious
rages and violent crimes.

More recently, police departments have tended to blame most local crime on
drug use, thus expanding their budgets as well as encouraging legislators
to pass increasingly strict sentencing for drug offenders. Which of course
keeps the prosecutors busy and pleases yet another lobby -- contractors who
build prisons.

On top of that, police and sheriffs' groups lobbied successfully to let
their departments retain proceeds from the sale of assets confiscated in
drug raids. Result: They profit directly from drug busts, a practice
raising serious ethical and constitutional questions.

The net result, argue Rasmussen and Benson, is "a tragedy in the criminal
justice commons," as drug enforcement dominates budgets, making funds
scarce for such unfolding needs as community policing and homeland security.

Plus, drug operations expose police departments to corruption -- the peril
of officers going bad, even lining up with one group of drug dealers
against another, as they deal in a sub rosa world awash with literally
millions of illegal dollars.

So how do we introduce new ideas, innovate, experiment, think afresh about
the drug issue?

Only, the Florida State authors argue, by decentralizing drug policy. They
would leave the federal government to deal with such issues as interstate
drug shipments but revoke national rules (like blanket prohibition of
marijuana) and hold state legislatures, agencies and bureaucrats more
directly responsible for the costs and results -- positive or negative --
of their policies.

Would such a move lead to wholesale liberalization of drug laws? Probably
no time soon, in most states. The same law enforcement bureaucracies would
almost surely fight change.

Yet we're not a uniform nation regarding drugs -- only marijuana and
cocaine are said to be used throughout the country, with other drug usage
varying dramatically, even within states. Different places may need quite
different approaches.

Plus, with a loosening of the federal hand, at least we could have debate
about new research in physiological effects of various drugs, consequences
of less regulation and dramatic treatment alternatives. Reform -- where the
public is willing -- would have a fighting chance. States could compare
notes, be "laboratories of democracy."

Less Washington dictation plus more local autonomy equals federalism at
work. What's not to like about that?