Gary E. Johnson, Governor of New Mexico
01/03/2001 The Arizona Republic

While many Americans followed the coverage of President Clinton's symbolic gesture granting clemency to two federal drug offenders last month, an important development in national drug policy received less attention: Clinton became the first sitting president to question the impact of the war on drugs. In a recent issue of Rolling Stone, Clinton said he supported decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana and an end to the disparity in sentencing for offenses involving crack and powder cocaine.

He also questioned the use of mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenders. I hope that lawmakers will take note of Clinton's comments. Americans want policies that save lives, keep drugs out of the hands of children and humanely treat addicts.

Too many Americans have lost faith in our approach to the war on drugs, as shown on Election Day when voters in five states approved ballot initiatives that moderate harsh drug policies, including some measures that allow drug treatment instead of prison for non-violent offenders or approve medical marijuana.

As governor of New Mexico, I have called for a re-evaluation of our drug strategies. I'm neither soft on crime nor pro-drugs in any sense. Yet when I ask whether our costly, protracted war on drugs has made the world safer, I must answer no.

The federal anti-drug budget in 1980 was roughly $1 billion. By 2000, that number had climbed to nearly $20 billion, with the states spending at least that much. Yet according to the federal government's own research, drugs are cheaper, purer and more available than ever.

We now have nearly half a million people behind bars on drug charges. And the burden of this explosion in incarceration falls disproportionately on minorities.

When we consider the social and public health costs, the illogic of our distinction between legal and illegal drugs is staggering. Nearly 70 million Americans have smoked marijuana, which remains the third-most-popular recreational drug in the country after tobacco and alcohol.

Deaths attributable to marijuana are rare. In fact, deaths from all illegal drugs combined, including cocaine and heroin, are fewer than 20,000 annually. By contrast, more than 450,000 Americans die each year from tobacco or alcohol use (not counting drunken-driving fatalities).

Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of the drug war, in fact, is the crime and violence that drug prohibition generates. Without achieving anything like the goal of a drug-free America, our policies have empowered a lethal black market.

In considering alternatives, we might look to Holland. The Dutch, who decriminalized marijuana in 1976 and treat drug addiction medically, enjoy far less crime and drug use than we do.

It is not outlandish to suggest that an alternative approach might lead to less drug-related harm, less imprisonment and less crime in America as well. Let me be clear: We must never tolerate the violence resulting from the use of drugs. But neither should we tolerate the needless casualties of drug prohibition.

Clinton's recent words on drug-policy reforms were a welcome first step. His comments should be the start of a new national debate.