Drugs and the border

El Paso's small step

Reform advocates want an honest and open debate on drug policy

See article

Readers' comments



The failed drug policy against pot started when Hearst wanted to protect his trees farms used for his paper against the first 'future billion dollar crop' as proclaimed by Time magazine: hemp. Not because of any medically backed studies, or moral outrage, but simply money.

Years later the US has wasted Billions because ONE guy wanted to do some business CYA. And yet we cant have a debate about it. Simply idiotic.

Lorenzo de Polanco

If the current health care debate is indicative of how future policy changes will work then any attempts at changing the US's admittedly bizarre and irrational drug policies will be a long slog.

What we need for the time being is lots more fact-based, objective media coverage of the shameful effects to other countries like Mexico of America's lack of political will to open a debate about a change in policy objectives; exactly like this excellently-written article. Great work Economist!


As one who has dealt with his own addiction, I think I can say with certainty the War on Drugs is the costliest failure in the history of this nation.

Stacks of money have been thrown at the problem, and the Bill of Rights has been pissed on as drugs have gotten deadlier and easier to get. As it stands, the only true function of the WoD is to provide employment for DEA mouthbreathers and prison guards.

If we spent the money on treatment we spent on prohibition, we'd get better results. But if we did that, there would be no more monster under the bed stories from people like Joe Arpiao, and DEA thugs whose only marketable skill is to slap around crack heads would be forced to get a real job.

The tools to fight addiction are a combination of compassion and science. (Lest we forget, the addict has to want to get clean as well, and you may have to let him sink to unthinkable bottoms) But I have my doubts the government will be up to the task


Of course the El Paso city council supports drug legalization, they are a local government, and local governments have to respond to the day to day business of running public services. Which is why the mayor vetoed it: he was trying to protect federal and state dollars flowing into his coffers. The higher up the political ladder you go, the less it is about making a difference in the everyday lives of individuals and the more it is about pleasing the small minority groups that give you lots of money. There may not be a lot of money in being pro-drug war, but there can be a very quick stoppage of money by being pro-intelligent solutions.


Prohibition of marijuana in the U.S. is great for British Columbia's urban agriculture industry, but it is also the main reason for the existence of organized crime here.

In BC the police by informal policy treat simple marijuana possession as a nuisance, not a crime, kind of like drinking in public. It's generally felt that more harm is done to society by prosecuting than by not prosecuting. The policy seems to work well.

The main thing we need to do here to deal with the drug issue is get a handle on how we provide effective treatment our mentally ill and our alcohol & heroin addicts. So far, we have few solutions. We've proven conclusively that locking them up doesn't work... so then what? We've had some success with intensive outreach programs... there is still a lot of learning to do. I do wish our Conservative government would let them do their jobs though.


There is so much taxpayer money flowing into the war on drugs it is ridiculous. It is time to retire the sizable government organizations that prosecute this war.


I think society can function fine if marijuana is legal but not if cocaine and heroine were legalized. Although possession of small quantities of hard drugs should be treated as a medical problem.


My drug dealer says that legalization will kill his business and put all of his employees out of work and without health care. What government welfare plan is set up for them?


The War on Drugs wasn’t about health, it was about portraying something simplistically as a moral issue of Good-versus-Evil. This has often been a successful strategy in American politics. Tobacco was associated with patriotic men of conventional views, marijuana with subversive hippies. This allowed the drug warriors to ignore for years the fact that more than 90 per cent of drug-related deaths are due to drugs that happen to be legal, i.e. tobacco and alcohol.
I was 11 years old when I tried tobacco because it was forbidden and grown-up. A yucky experience, I didn't learn to like it. If tobacco was compulsory instead of forbidden it'd be much less attractive. If all kids were forced to try it once and inhale until they gagged and vomited, would fewer of them want to become regular smokers?


The problem remains that the people opposed to legalization are very staunchly opposed to it and won't listen to arguments in favor of it. To them it's a moral issue.

For most of the rest of us, most drugs aren't a moral issue, it's just policy. We think they should be legalized because this will be the most effective policy but we don't feel any moral drive which would give us the strong will to back up our beliefs. Those few who do feel a moral drive for legalization are generally users and already at the margins of society meaning they have little influence. The large middle of the debate, pro-legalization but ultimately lukewarm about it, aren't willing to have the fight with the prohibition crowd to make legalization happen.

In the end, it's also largely an age gap. We'll wait for the prohibition people to start to die off then the lukewarm middle will have its way and drugs will be legalized. We'll enjoy the benefits of the reduced government expenditure and the more successful medical model for treatment and write history books talking about the dark ages where we oppressed hundreds of thousands of people needlessly leading to violence and broken youth. That's just how history goes. Not that I'd be opposed if anyone had a great idea to speed its march up a bit.

Side not to those talking about drugs penetrating the schools. Weed is far more easily available than alcohol is right now. If you legalize it you have more means of control over its distribution so you're likely to reduce its prevalence in schools. Lower the drinking age so kids can get intoxicated legally more easily (I regard preventing kids from getting intoxicated as an impossibility, the choice is over what they're doing not if they're doing it) and you'll have less looking for illegal channels for drugs. Right now, the easiest stuff to get is the illegal stuff so we're raising generation after generation of kids that have committed felonies by the time their 16 or 17. Truly absurd.

Aonghas Crowe

As someone who has been on the business side of a police nightstick for "crimes", the only victim of which was his own body, I remain an unapologetic supporter for the legalization, regulation, and taxation of all narcotics.

It's high time drugs stop being a law enforcement issue and start being one of public health.

More on drugs and law enforcement in Japan here:


If we legalize a monopoly, will this hurt the monopoly, or will this allow the monopoly to expand?

To me this is common sense, the drug cartels want marijuana legalized even though 70% of their income is based on this drug. Why do they want it legalized? They can expand legally without having to worry about the police.

Those that grow drugs in their back yards probably are not going to grow more if we legalize the drug because they already have sufficient amounts that they are already producing.

Artificial Intelligence

All the arguments against legalization apparently boil down to the idea that everyone will start taking drugs and that junkies will ruin your local neighbourhood/school/mother's apple pie. The experience from Portgual and the Netherlands, both of which decriminalized marijuana, is that the number of people using it *doesn't change*. Everyone who wants to take marijuana already did before it was decriminalized. So there is no downside to legalization!


Prince Yahmarra's comment "the War will never end" is likely to be true unless the public gets involved. I have decided to try and make a difference by developing a website (crackonomics) to encourage an online public debate to develop a more effective US drug policy. If I can just add to the noise then hopefully politicians will be willing to risk some political capital to push drug reform ahead.

It is truly a sad day when a politician (El Paso representative) threatens to use federal funding to stop a public debate on drug reform.

Prince Yahmarra

Why would the goverment shut something down that they themselves set up? The CIA brought drugs emasse to the US so they could fund secret wars. Furthermore what better way to stimulate an economy then a "war" on drugs. They need walkie talkies, patrol cars, uniforms, concrete for prison, washers & dryers, toilets steel for bars, etc. etc. All this stuff creates demand wich creates a job for someone else on the behalf of someone elses' misfortune. As an aside, hasn't WWII been credited by some as to ending the Great Depression. Its all about the money, as sad as it is, the War will never end.

Doug Pascover

It's funny, the first thought reading about the El Paso veto could be, it's a pity that effectiveness and results aren't more important to mayors. The next thought should be that the vetoed bill is a sense of the body motion. I suppose the lesson would be that we're stuck on a really short step.


The argument is simple. Yes, alcohol and tobacco are addictive, and there is no question about that. There are 10's of 1000's of alcohol related deaths each year that consistently rises here in the U.S. When do we ever hear about marijuana related deaths? When do we ever hear about how addictive marijuana is? We don't. So why is it that marijuana is so much "worse" than alcohol or tobacco. You rarely hear about crimes committed because the accused was "high." Seems like a no brainer to me.

noisey maan

My problem with legalizing drugs of the addictive sort is the increased appearance of young addicts in the schools and universities. What this might do to future generations skill acquisition and learning ability I have no idea. But having seen the growth of the celebrity cult and watched youngsters idolize the hopeless and become thus themselves I do have reservations. It is true that you might soften the violence of drug wars, but would that be worth it?
To me it is no use arguing that alcohol and tobacco are very addictive drugs and they are legal; they both cause immense problems in society. Is adding to their number going to help?

Maybe society should waste less resources on rehabilitation. Is it not possible if people ( say over 18 years)faced a choice of destruction with little or no help from a rehab industry that they would act more sensibly?

Howard Knudsen

I for one would like to see the drug taxed, regulated and kept from the hands of black market profiteers. Of course, I'm preaching to the choir of rational, educated Economist readers. If only we could convince our leaders, of the ineffectiveness of their actions. Until then reform minded talk will remain banished to the articles of more enlightened European journals like this one. So it goes.

Alejandro Polanco Kepfer

Too bad the folks from El Paso had their proposition vetoed. What we need now is to have examples / models / guinea pigs to understand what would happen when we switch gears from combating drug trade to treating drug users... it is a medical issue after all.
At least the debate got stronger...



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

