Mexico and the Future of the War on Drugs

"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.” Hunter S. Thompson.

The discussion of our nation’s war on drugs (ahem) there are clearly a wide array of considerations that must be made. Not so much on whether a change is needed, which seems to be more and more widely supported, but in exactly how to make that change. $1 trillion has gone out the door since the “war” began (which is still a staggering figure, even if we’ve been desensitized by 000’s from the past six months) and yet drugs are cheaper and more powerful.

I know we haven’t been receiving the best returns on our government’s investments lately, but if anyone can take that figure, not to mention the lives brutally lost, robberies, clogged prisons, shredded families, and other unquantifiable social costs, and try to argue that such costs are outweighed by the benefits, then I’d really like to hear it. (In truth, it’s pretty clear the only real argument on the other side is that drug reform means you are soft.)

President Obama has made it clear that he does not support the legalization of marijuana, despite the issue gaining some steam largely on fiscal reasons earlier this year. But there are many changes that can be made that do not require what will be described as an official validation and justification of drug use.

There are active efforts to repeal federal drug prohibitions, which would allow for states to have a greater say in their drug laws. (What ever happened to states’ rights, not to mention personal responsibility, liberty, property rights, less government, and all of the other “small government” principles?)

Many countries, including Canada and now Mexico, have chosen decriminalization. Point being: there are options and we need to look at them. Particularly with this monumental shift in the country that is one of our main drug-war allies in addition to serving as the main drug-running conduit. Vincente Fox received a similar bill in 2005 and was immediately told by our previous Administration that his signature would effectively destroy our bilateral relationship. The current bill sat on Calderon’s desk for 10 weeks as a patiently waited for a signal from the current, heavily-burdened Administration.

Most importantly, on a media-watching side-note, it is truly remarkable how the political realm is being dominated by vanilla stories that are trying to fill in the dead news cycle and blatant misdirection trying to cover up serious issues.

With 24 hour news and a billion blogs, the Mexican policy change should be a much bigger story. The social, economic, and political ramifications are all huge and could have major effects on how our society views itself and how our government manages this social perception for generations to come.

Health Care

The whole discussion of “death camps” and the like is totally unfounded and it is a symptom of the embarrassing degradation of our national discourse. (Stephen Pearlstein of the Washington Post put it well—this plan to have these town hall freak-outs could backfire, as its forcing people to have actual honest discussions about healthcare and understand the severity of the issue). Frankly, late-life counseling was originally a republican idea back in the early Clinton years—and it makes sense on both financial and moral grounds.

There have also been accusations about eliminating benefits for seniors, though I'm not sure where this information is coming from. The cost is born mostly by mandates on small businesses (de facto taxes) or penalties (taxes) plus increasing taxes on the top income brackets, not cuts to existing benefits.

Unfortunately, the opposition is so vitriolic you can’t really take it to heart. My actual concerns are such: the President is saying that the bill will reduce costs and expand coverage. That is simply contradictory, especially since there aren’t major changes being proposed in how healthcare services are paid for, obtained, or allocated. In truth, most of the “pro” discussion is well-wishing, assuming that things will get better just because the President said so. In truth, the main goal of this legislation is expanding coverage to the uninsured, which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office noted will not reduce costs. Frankly, since most budgeting is done on 10 year horizons and the current legislation won’t come into effect for 3 years, the really scary feature is that the plan will increase the deficit by $60-80 billion per year in its 10th year—clearly showing that the costs will trend upwards, not come down.

I also don’t fall for the pseudo-economic talk about how a public option will affect private plans. Just because you use words like “competition” and “cost-curve” doesn’t mean you are following sound economic reasoning. A public plan would be able to undercut private plans due to its bargaining power and mandate to determine which services can be provided. If one was set-up, it clearly would put pressure on small businesses unable to pay for private plans, so they would rather assume the tax penalties for not providing healthcare (8% of payroll) versus their current healthcare costs (high teens into 20s of payroll). So the public option doesn’t directly force people to use it (which some opponents suggest) but it by no means is a straightforward, benign “other option” as its proponents suggest. Many people would like single payer healthcare, which is a perfectly legitimate view, but pretending that the “competition” model does not push our healthcare system in that direction is downright disingenuous.

Going back to well-wishing and the blind defense of the proposal, the President (and Administration) did well with their town meeting in NH. But the president has been deferring to Congress (as he did with the Stimulus and Cap and Trade) so his high-minded rhetoric should not be confused with the chaotic deal making that will actually construct whatever legislation is ultimately placed on his desk, which is why I remain to be skeptical.

It certainly is a morass and a lot of people are rightfully concerned. The final version will either be a testament to the President’s leadership and vision or an increasingly apparent demonstration of naïveté and lack of governing experience.