A few days ago, cannabis stocks surged after news broke that President Donald Trump is considering ordering his administration to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, a move that would represent a significant shift in US policy.
Cannabis is currently classified as a Schedule I drug, the same category as heroin and LSD—substances considered to have no medical use and a high potential for abuse. A reclassification to Schedule III would group marijuana with drugs considered to have a lower potential for dependence, such as ketamine and codeine-laced Tylenol. The reclassification would ease restrictions on the purchase and sale of cannabis, representing a major victory for the industry, investors, and medical marijuana patients.
In any case, the truth is that due to the “war on drugs,” since it began under Nixon, more than 40 million people have been imprisoned and, in Mexico alone, more than 120,000 have died since 2006. This is the consequence of repression, of establishing prohibition that seems to be nothing more than a monopolistic business, run by politicians and bureaucrats, where only those who try to operate outside this monopoly are punished and persecuted.
How else can it be explained that the US—with the world’s best-equipped security forces—has the highest number of consumers even though it is not a producing country and that practically all the drugs enter through its borders? Are these forces so inefficient, or is there collusion between traffickers, politicians, and police? Radar is useless for controlling illegal flights when it is proven that most of the drugs enter through completely legal channels.
Are these drugs so harmful? Undoubtedly, but curiously, others that are “legal” are causing more harm. According to the European Commission, 8,000 people die each year in the European Union from the consumption of prohibited drugs, and another 20,000 indirectly. That’s a lot; a single death is tragic. But many more die from alcohol—some 800,000 only in Europe, according to Eurostat—or from smoking, or due to traffic accidents.
Another argument is that it would be a matter of self-defense, since drug addicts are considered dangerous to society. But it’s not clear that they are inherently dangerous (except when they consume toxic mixtures, given the poor quality of illegal substances); rather, they seem to be physically and mentally impaired. On the other hand, it is plausible that—once criminalized by the state—instead of being made visible so they can be helped, they become criminals themselves, unable to alleviate their addiction through normal channels and at non-monopolistic prices.
But, even in the case of legitimate self-defense, the morally acceptable methods of control are peaceful, as they are also the most efficient. Furthermore, is it permissible to use violence—implicit in prohibition and in the war on drugs—to prevent someone from committing suicide? It is not. The theory of the lesser evil is not permissible.
The dilemma, ultimately, is between a monopoly by officials at exorbitant prices, making it a huge and highly-corrupting business, or natural market regulation. In contrast to what happens in repressive countries, in Portugal where drugs are more readily available, the number of crimes and drug addicts is lower. According to the UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime), there are 0.5 homicides per year in Portugal per 100,000 inhabitants, while in the US it’s 4.7.
If the prohibitions were lifted, respecting the most fundamental human right—the right to personal freedom, to live one’s own life—drugs would be out in the open, like alcohol, and drug trafficking and associated crimes would immediately disappear. Consequently, drug addicts would be more easily identified and controlled.
