There’s a lot of talk lately about the War on Drugs. Both Ted and I wrote articles about it, and both of our articles gave mention to a recent international panel that was convened to assess the effectiveness of the War on Drugs. Just the other day, my other esteemed colleague, Larry, wrote a piece about Operation Fast and Furious, a completely abject failure in said war, and the subject of legalization came up.
If human nature was such that the people at large could control themselves and not allow drugs to destroy their lives, then yes, legalization might work. The efficacy of legalization also hinges on human nature being less violently competitive. But because humans seem to have a habit of forming addictions, and because the criminal underground does not seem to believe in any rational notion of fair competition, I wholly reject the notion that legalizing drugs would end any portion of suffering.
One PR reader suggested that the violence surrounding drug cartels and the like is due to the fact that they’re forced underground. Because drugs are illegal, they are forced to do illegal things to keep up their livelihoods. The premise is that making drugs legal, “bringing it out in the open,” if I may loosely quote the reader, would then compel these cartels to compete out in the open less violently.
This line of thought relies heavily on a perception of the magnanimous nature of human beings. The cartels have been violent probably since their inception. They’re idea of competition is who can kill whom first, or who can send the grizzliest message to mitigate opposition. I can imagine that nearly every person that works for a cartel is fairly amoral.
So why do we think that the drug lords would suddenly be okay with open competition? Do we envision them as products of their environment, desperately waiting for drugs to be legal so they can discontinue all the bloodshed?
I highly doubt that any of them at this point have any compunction with murder, and seeing as how murder has proven an effective way for them to control their market, why would they abandon it simply because drugs would be legal? Sure, we could regulate it here in America and make it really difficult for American drug lords to kill people, but what about in countries like Mexico where they have absolutely zero fear of government sanction or law enforcement?
Think of this scenario. Drugs are legalized tomorrow, and home pot-growers everywhere are excited to bring their enterprises into the light of day. How many of them do you think would live long enough to get off the ground? How many of them would seriously try to make a name for themselves, knowing that they would become the target of cartel ire? They couldn’t hide it any longer because their sales of the drug would be a matter of public record due to the taxes that would certainly be levied.
If a large tobacco company were to get into the business then drug lords would likely have a much more difficult time in controlling the market due to the high-profile visibility inherent to a large corporation, but seeing as how the families of police officials turn up murdered to prove a point, I doubt that the families of Phillip-Morris would be off-limits. And who’s to say that the cartels would suddenly bring their business in the open anyway? Why would they want to submit to government oversight and pay taxes?
I think the short answer is that they wouldn’t. They would stay underground so that they could conduct business as usual. They would continue to murder, steal, and sabotage their competition.
As I mentioned in my comments on Larry’s article, should we legalize murder, stealing, and prostitution? Just as the War on Drugs has done little to stop the drug lords, law enforcement has done little to stop murderers, thieves, and whores. So instead of changing the way we operate, instead of trying to concoct more efficacious solutions, let’s just give up on it altogether since we can’t stop it. Perhaps people will stop wanting to kill each other so much if they know they’re allowed to do it?
That last sentiment is clearly illogical, so why would we think otherwise with drugs? I agree that the War on Drugs has been a failure. One can’t deny that fact when we plainly see the asinine machinations of our government as demonstrated in Operation Fast and Furious. Since I’m no authority on law enforcement, I won’t pretend to have any solutions to the problem other than to say that instead of abandoning the cause altogether, perhaps we should try to avoid an Operation 2 Fast 2 Furious.
Prostitution should be legalized if for no other reason than it would greatly reduce human smuggling in the sex trade. Drugs I do not think should be legalized in most cases. Cocaine, heroin, crack, meth… addiction to those drugs destroys lives. Pot I am on the fence about. Pot smokers can destroy their lives because the drug robs them of their ambition and energy in many cases but it does not have the effects other, “hard” drugs have. Pot growing is big business in California and there are gangs involved in it renting houses to grow the stuff or using park land. San Francisco has its pot clubs and while I haven’t read about increased crime because of it part of me says this type of thing sends the wrong message to kids.
Jack you make a valid point that even if it were legal it’s not like the cartels in Central and South America would suddenly become good corporate citizens and still not kill one another off.
Without being too narrow in my focus, let me address part of this post, because the implications are enormous…
In a strictly functional viewpoint, people are destroying their lives right now. Drugs are so readily available, that they might as well be legal. Availability would not change.
The second, and most destructive part of that comment is that it is “progressive” in it’s very premise. “Progressives” believe themselves to be smarter than the rest of us, so they can determine…
1. What kind of car we can buy, because we might might choose incorrectly.
2. Ban bagged lunches at schools, because the parents will choose the wrong foods.
3. Control all healthcare, because patients and doctors may not choose frugally.
4. What kind of lightbulb we can buy, because the non-poisonous incandescent bulbs are wasteful.
That’s a short list, but you get the point. We are too dumb to manage ourselves, so government must tell us what we can and can’t do. That, my friends, is “progressive” thinking. We cannot engage in this line of thought, as we end up being no different than those we are against.
The difference between drugs and all of that stuff you’ve mentioned is that drugs are destructive and never beneficial. Just as the government ought to regulate guns–not to a level that infringes on our right to bear arms–they have the right to regulate drugs. Since drugs are never beneficial, it is right that they make them illegal.
You’re thinking that everyone is smart enough to steer clear of drugs. How about teenagers? Are they smart enough to make the right decisions? Not many of them.
It’s not progressive to think that people are generally stupid and that they need laws to keep them from harming themselves and others, that’s just reality. Explain to me how it’s destructive or “progressive,” to outlaw drugs.
If drugs can be banned because they are not beneficial (and they are not), then why not let’s ban alcohol again? Why not ban tobacco entirely? Why not ban trans-fat? Tell people how much time they can spend in the sun? Cars that can go over the speed limit are not useful, let’s scrap them all! After all, if they are too dumb not to use drugs, why not government just tell them how to live?
It’s progressive because the central assumption of any statist is that people are too dumb to manage their own lives. Hence, the government must tell them what to do, eat, drink, and so forth.
As for teenagers, I could probably ask just about any one to tell me where I could get drugs. They’d have an answer within 10 minutes, if it took that long.
This form of prohibition has failed. We banned something that some people want to use, and we could jail 50 million of them, and there would still be use.
Alcohol is actually beneficial in moderation. Tobacco takes years of habbitual use for it to wreck your body.
Surely you see that alcohol and tobacco are completely different from drugs that are currently illegal. Tell me in what moderate amount is cocaine not destructive? How about crystal meth?
And as I mentioned to the other guy, who would want to start making and selling their own drugs when they know they could likely be slaughtered? I wouldn’t be so stupid to risk my life.
Plus, if you’re looking at this economically, if drugs are legalized won’t they be highly taxed? Individual suppliers wouldn’t make as large of a profit if they sold below what the cartels are selling it for because they’d have to pay taxes on their sales. The cartels would pay no such tax.
I’m really confused as to why you think these men in the cartels, people who have mass murdered innocents, and have thrown decapitated heads onto town squares, would suddenly play nice simply because drugs are legal.
You all have way too high an estimation of human nature. And why would you use prohibition as an example? That was over 80 Years ago, and times have changed drastically since then.
Jack, I agree with this post, but Matt has a valid point. You are arguing from a progressive mindset, and here is how: You are making an evaluative judgement on human activities: This one is good, this one is bad… And you would then use the coercive power of the state to impose your values on the rest of us. I drink beer, so a tea totaling moralist and I would disagree on your assessment of alcohol.
I think this is a great debate, I just wanted to point this out to you.
What judgement did I make about alcohol? I drink alcohol, too, and I think it’s perfectly fine that it’s legal. I think Prohibition was stupid.
Alcohol, unlike drugs, is not harmful in small amounts. A small amount of alcohol is not going to drastically alter your state of consciousness, if at all. Any small amount of drugs–pot, cocaine, crack, crystal meth–will drastically alter one’s state of consciousness and have a highly addictive effect on the body (addictivenes perhaps with the exception of pot).
So what about pro-lifers? They’re trying to impose a moral standard on everyone else. Murder? Theft? Or how about statutory rape laws? In some cultures it’s okay for older men to have sex with 16 year old girls. Hell, it was okay in America probably not more than 150 years ago. There are some people who still think it’s okay. Am I just trying to impose a moral standard on them? There is nothing progressive about making a law that prohibits people from using dangerous substances. The one that I would most fear would be crystal meth, because it can be made fairly easily from the home.
I would not want to see a ton of home meth labs pop up simply because we think it’s a wasted effort to stop people from producing, using, and distributing it. They’re dangerous for reasons other than the distribution and use of crystal meth.
As for the economics of it, I can understand people producing pot themselves for their own use, but what about drugs that depend highly on purity? People are willing to pay more money for a better high that you can get from a purer product. I think, perhaps, the drug lords would still be able to demand the same prices if their product is purer and safer than some upstart from his basement.
That is a judgement, and you are condoning government imposing that judgment on everyone else. I’m not trying to pick a fight, just backing up what Matt said.
Murder is more clear cut. It’s the taking of a human life, which has been clearly marked as immoral since the dawn of time.
But even murder isn’t clear cut. We allow for the death penalty, and what is that but state-sanctioned murder (Albert Camus’s words, not mine)? We sanction war that kills innocents and combatants alike.
I can sort of see the argument for legalizing pot, but what about cocaine, crack, and crystal meth? Those drugs are always harmful, always addictive, and never beneficial. It’s not like legislating on sodium content of food, or trying to tell people what they are and are not allowed to eat.
I know the argument: personal responsibility. If they’re not smart enough to stay away from it then let them be idiots and ruin their lives. Well, can’t we say the same about anything that’s against the law? There are laws for a reason.
Question: why are drugs illegal in the first place?
I am not arguing with the larger point of your post, merely nodding in assent to Matt’s observation that the basis of your argument is the slippery slope of progressivism.
In fairness, most discussions of this type are.
I agree with you on this Matt. While I do not do drugs of any kind I think that this comes down to an issue of personal responsibility and I feel that pot should be legalized. The liberals like to claim that you cannot legislatie morality when if comes to issues such as abortion and gay marriage yet they feel as if they can legislate bad behavior to protect us from themselves.
This article completely ignores the economics of the black market. When a government outlaws drugs, all it does is severely restrict supply. It doesn’t make drugs or the demand for drugs go away. It drives the drug trade underground where those who demand drugs can still get them at a steeper price. In short, government prohibition drives up prices and profit margins. Huge profit margins are the only reason black market drug lords are in the drug business. In short, they can earn fantastic amounts of money by smuggling illegal drugs and cracking the heads of those who buy drugs outside the protection of law enforcement.
If the government were to legalize drugs, the price of drugs would drastically fall, as would the profit margins of drug manufacturers and sellers. The drug lord may enjoy cracking heads and killing people in order to make a fantastic sum of money. Would he continue cracking heads and killing people for the equivalent of Walmart’s profit margin? Common sense and experience argue against it.
Today, nobody extorts or murders beer manufacturers and distributors. Why? The reason is obvious: beer manufacturing and distributing is legal. Thus, the profit margins of beer manufacturing and distributing are set by the free market. Profit amounts to a few cents on the dollar, a far cry from the enormous profits of black marketeers.
If one doesn’t trust economic theory to prove my point, all one has to do is study American history during Prohibition, when alcohol was illegal and the alcohol trade was driven underground. Profit margins drastically increased and gangsters making and distributing alcoholic beverages grew very, very rich. The day after Prohibition ended, there was no longer big, easy money to be made pushing alcohol, so these gangsters left the alcohol trade and became bookies, pimps and drug pushers, i.e., they went into business distributing other black market products and services where big, easy money could be made because of government prohibitions. For many, the reward was no longer worth the risk, so they went straight, i.e., they integrated back into honest society.
It seems you ignore the fact that alcohol was always more ubiquitous than drugs because it has been a major part of human culture ever since we figured out we could ferment stuff. Alcohol is a much safer substance when used responsibly. If drugs were legalized, there likely would not be droves of people trying to get in on the business for many reasons.
1. Because drugs are generally not all that socially accepted. There’s still a stigma attatched to drug use and production.
2. The nature of the drug trade industry is incredibly dangerous. The Mexican and Colombian drug lords have no problems killing the families of even law enforcement agencies. Why would they not kill individual producers trying to cut in on their business?
3. Individual producers would not only have to worry about the big cartels, but they’d have to worry about local gangs and what not.
To think that all the violence is going to stop simply because we legalize it is fairly ridiculous. You say that prices would drop, and you might be right. So when the prices drop because of the increase of supply, how do you think the cartels would respond? Would they simply sit back and say “oh well, we had a good run. Let’s let the market run its course”? No. If anything, the violence would increase as they try to stamp out all the new competition. The murders would likely become more grizzly so they could send a stronger message.
This isn’t 1920′s America. This is the 21st Century where drug lords are vicious and brutal. Since when do murderers start playing nice simply because we give up?
Can you cite an historical precedent for that? When prohibition ended, did the mafia take out Jim Beam, or Budweiser? Did they burn down every legal liquor store? No, they did find other things to do, like Las Vegas and Unions, but the violence that you predict for the future has not happened in the past.
Perhaps a sense of history and a working knowledge of economics would change your prospective.
For centuries people have been smoking and ingesting whatever could make them high. Opium has been known and used for thousands of years before the birth of Christ. In 19th century America heroin was legal in the U.S. and manufactured by drug companies like Bayer. Moreover, for its time, the level of violence due to the black market in alcohol was truly unprecedented and shocking during Prohibition. Driveby shootings, bombings, public shootouts and assassinations were the SOP of gangsters of the era. Tommy Guns were the weapons of terror then.
Prohibition wasn’t repealed because the Women’s Temperance League lost it fervor. Prohibition was repealed because people came to their senses and could no longer tolerate the violence and corruption the war on alcohol created. High black market prices made it profitable to distribute alcohol in school yards. Sound familiar?
Furthermore, the shortage of “safe” alcoholic beverages like beer, which were manufactured by reputable companies like Budweiser and Yuengling, gave way to “bathtub” brews which were toxic. Cheap moonshine could blind and kill and it did. It was commonplace for fires to burn down tenaments and kill families when these home distilleries blew up. “Crack” cocaine and other dangerous modern illegal concoctions are the direct result of the drug war, i.e., taking legal, Bayer heroin off the legal market.
But all this history doesn’t change the economics of the situation. You say to expect the violence to stop upon legalization is “ridiculous.” Nobody makes that argument. Alcohol-related violence continues to this day in legal bars and night clubs. However, nobody today is killing innocent bystanders in the streets with machine guns over the beer trade. The “extent” and “proliferation” of violence will be greatly reduced because the profit-motive is gone from the illegal drug trade.
You say the cartels would try to “stamp out all the new competition” in the event of drug legalization. The diehards might try, but the new legal supply of drugs from all sources (including backyard growers) will quickly overwhelm them, flood the market with supply, lower prices and make the efforts of drug lords to stop it pointless. The hoodlums would be spitting into the wind. After Prohibition ended, Al Capone and company didn’t declare war on Coors, Budweiser, Yuengling and the thousands of local breweries that sprang up overnight. They might as well have tried to stop the tide coming into the harbor!
The bottomline is that if people want drugs, they will get them one way or the other. Black market hoodlums will be eager to supply them because only they are willing to take the risks to earn enormous profits. These points are indisputable. The only question I have is given these facts, why do you insist on a policy that creates these enormous profits and that guarantees that the only people that can earn these enormous profits are the most violent and immoral dregs of our society?
It is clear that the drug war creates and subsidizes the most “grizzly” violence imaginable, violence that inflitrates every corner of our society NOW, from public streets to school yards to private homes in neighborhoods. It is commonplace to read about SWAT teams invading the homes of innocent citizens. All this, yet we continue to fight this war on drugs. Why?
Because some, few righteous among us fear that their anonymous neighbors might “allow drugs to destroy their lives.”
Give me a break.
Why do you think this is anything like prohibition? Like I said, before prohibition alcohol was ubiquitous. The illegal structure of it didn’t spring up until prohibition, and it didn’t last long.
With illegal drugs, we’re talking about a black market industry that has existed for over 30 years. The drug lords would control the uptick in suppliers by making their murders even more horrendous.
Would you want to grow pot knowing that you and your entire family could be decapitated?
You are making a losing argument. Let it go.
The laws of economics apply equally to both drugs and alcohol. The drug prohibition seems worse because it’s entrenchment has been subsidized for 40 years. In short, our grandparents came to their senses a whole lot faster than we’re coming to ours.
Drug lords, no matter how brutal and horrendous their crimes, cannot change market prices. Next time you lose money in the stock market, cut off the arms and legs of your broker and mail them to the stock exchange. See if it makes a change in the price of gold or wheat or steel.
As for growing pot in my backyard, I wouldn’t do it now and the chances of me getting caught doing it now in our near-police state are a whole lot greater than getting caught and killed by some drug kingpin in Columbia. But people do grow pot now, and make meth at great risk to themselves and their families. The War Against Drugs can’t stop them, no matter how many raids they conduct, no matter how intrusive their surveillance methods.
The point is when the demand for pot is satisfied by growing your own plant on your own property the demand for overpriced Columbian pot grown by murdering thugs dries up. When demand dries up, prices fall and the Columbian thug can’t do a thing about it. He’s certainly not likely to get on a plane, travel to America and go house-to-house beating up individual Americans.
The cops are more likely to do that now.
I’m of two minds on this topic, probably because my father (b 1911) told me that when drugs were legal, the societal problems were not as bad as they are now. Now, I don’t know how accurate Dad’s anecdotes on this topic were, but he did grow up near D.C. and, therefore, saw a lot of drug addicts.
I think that most today recognize what a disaster prohibition was.
As for the drug lords, yes, they would present a problem if drugs were legalized, IMO. But maybe not in the long term.
Come to D.C. to see what a disaster the war on drugs is. Sheesh. We have lots of no-go sections, with the crack dealers out in the open. The police know and walk on by.
My minimal two cents is that we simply cannot afford to lock up millions of people. That is what we have done. They then have criminal records which destroy most chances of a decent livelihood. The rest was a great conversation!
Well stated Jack. This is not an easy issue, especially for those of us who possess both conservative and libertarian tendencies.
The War on Drugs is such a capacious concept. I think we need to take a page from Rene Descartes and break it down further. There are many issues…
- Should mere possession be a crime? Growing your own for personal use?
- Possession vs trafficking
- Control of our borders (we’ve completely lost it)
- Government programs shielding people from the consequences of their bad behavior
I don’t think we take down this topic with a single silver bullet
Well, I must say, I didn’t suspect this post would generate such a discussion when I asked Jack to write it. I have been following and reading each comment, but since I am having to use an old laptop, due to my main computer being in the repair shop, I am just now responding.
I’ll be honest, I have mixed feelings about this. First and foremost, I believe drugs, or any other substance that alters one’s mind and state of consciousness or one’s body are dangerous and something to be avoided. In my opinion, the only difference between alcohol and drugs is the amount of the substance that it takes to become addicted. I have witnessed firsthand the damage alcohol can do, so I have no fondness for it. From that perspective, I would lose no sleep if neither existed or were unavailable for use.
However, they do exist, so I must reconcile my feelings of personal freedom against the feeling that these substances are dangerous and should be controlled. Even though I believe they are too dangerous for a human being to use, I can not deny the fact that the war on drugs has been largely ineffective. Are drugs less available than they were before President Nixon began this war? I think the honest answer to that is a resounding no. Should the war be abandoned? I am not so sure the answer is as clear cut as a simple yes or no.
I have been hearing in the news that many law enforcement officials, those that have been on the front lines of the war on drugs, are becoming convinced that the war is failing. They are now advocating a different approach, such as more treatment and less incarceration. I am not convinced that is the answer, as it seems that most treatment programs have a very low success rate.
It all boils down to this simple fact. Once a person is addicted to a substance, be it drugs, alcohol, or even tobacco, it is very difficult for them to stop using that substance. I don’t see how that can be denied. Having said that, is it the responsibility of the government to prevent their use by force? I think not, but again, the answer may not be a simple yes or no.
That’s more or less my point, that although we shouldn’t abandon the war on drugs we seriously need to take stock of how we’re going about it and alter the way we’re executing it.
Let me rephrase … If human nature was such that agents of government (politicians, bureaucrats, FBI police, et. al.) were angels, free of sin, who would not allow power, money and vice to corrupt them, maybe drug criminalization could work.
Medical marijuana has been legal here in Michigan for going on 3 years now. Still no sign of violent drug cartels chopping the heads off their competition.
Sherman Broder did a fine job explaining the economic fallacies of your argument, but I’d like to add an important point. For everything you say to be true (from an economic standpoint), communism works perfectly and the free market is impossible.
Yes. It is exactly the same as alcohol prohibition, well, except that at least the progressives had the common decency to pass an amendment knowing prohibition was unlawful otherwise.
Who owns you? Who owns me? Let’s say I decide to, oh, I don’t know, start shooting heroin right now. Where do you derive this “right” to break into my home, exact violence against me, kidnap and lock me in a cage, and steal my property? Let’s say you decide to smoke a joint. Where would I derive the “right” to put a gun to your head and demand you stop? How much “collateral damage” is justified? Who gets to decide?
Maybe drugs addicts are a problem, but so is the violence you advocate against them. Few seem to argue otherwise, society is in decline. Interesting that the more state control over individual lives corresponds with our societal degeneration. We love violence. Champion violence! In the name of Christ no less. As long as that violence is carried out by our government angels, that is.
A civilized society doesn’t put a gun to someone’s head because he smokes pot. Neither does a Christian society. “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
You wouldn’t derive any right to “defend” yourself against law enforcement for arresting you for using an illegal substance because you’re breaking the law. Just because you think the law is unjust doesn’t mean you have the right to break it. Since you enjoy the fruits of the social contract, you have to abide by it or face the consequences. Work to change the law, but if you act as though it were not law then you deserve the punishment that befalls you. Personal responsibility, right?
And prohibition is completely different from the drug thing. For starters, nearly everyone that was of age drank alcohol. The people who didn’t drink alcohol were looked upon as “different.” Before drugs were banned, drugs were not nearly as ubiquitous as alcohol. It’s not like 90% of the American adult population was on drugs when the government banned it. Why? Because most people knew that drugs were highly addictive and had very destructive consequences.
The mobsters were screwed after prohibition because alcohol is easy to produce. Anyone with a bath tub and the money to buy the materials can brew their own beer. It’s not hard to make a still.
Drugs, with the exception of pot, are not so easy to produce. How many people in America are going to go through the trouble to produce their own cocaine? How many people are going to risk the dangers of producing their own crystal meth? Probably very few.
And your pro-anarchism/libertarian argument is ridiculous. If violence increases with more government oversight, then why do we have government at all? Government exist because violence exists with or without it. Although I generally advocate for limited government, with it at least you don’t have to worry about exacting justice from those who would harm you.
It’s basic Lockean theory. We get government to protect us and enforce the rules of society so the individual doesn’t have to do it himself. That way, the individual is free to pursue whatever makes him happy without too much worry of his stuff being accosted.
Sorry for being a late participant, but my life has been out of control. The War on Drugs has been a failure, but what to do next is open to debate. My preference is to start with a relatively innocuous substance like marijuana (innocuous when compared to cocaine or opiates). Let states try a couple of different policies and see what works best. I do not advocate the immediate legalization of any and all substances, but rather want to admit the War was a failure and being taking steps to clean up the mess.
And that was more or less the point I was making. The War on Drugs has been an epic failure, and it’s even more so pronounced when we see ridiculous things like Operation Fast and Furious. My point is that we should try to figure out how to undo the damage without letting the drug lords win.
Although I think pot is still a bad thing, as I’ve seen it very adversely affect the lives of some once good friends of mine, I can more understand that being legalized as it’s definitely not as destructive as other drugs.
But I think that legalizing drugs in order to stop the violence is a pipe dream. People seem to be thinking of this from the view-point of an economist or a businessman. I’m thinking of it from the view-point of a drug lord (or what I think their mentality would be based on what has happened so far). If I knew that drugs were legalized and the potential for supply to go way up was high, I’d stage extremely grizzly murders to make everyone fear getting into the business.
As a drug lord in Mexico, nearly free from all reprisal and retribution, I wouldn’t give a second thought to having the CEO of Phillip Morris brutally murdered along with his family if they decided to get into the pot business.
That’s a completely different topic. I asked, “Where do you derive this “right” to break into my home, exact violence against me, kidnap and lock me in a cage, and steal my property?”
Where is this contract and why have I not been offered to sign it?
So, based on this mythical contract, you’re saying agents of the government have the “right” to make any rules they choose, regardless of even the Constitution, and they are morally just in exacting violence upon me if I don’t comply?
“[R]ightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” — Thomas Jefferson
That’s a good question. Funny. If you think back to the most empowered governments throughout history as well as today, none of them are known for having a virtuous society. It was only the once “land of the free” who was virtuous. Something we’re not known for anymore.
Enough for now … Until we know where this “right” to use violent coercion against your fellow man for ingesting a substance you don’t like derives from, arguing the economics is a waste of time.
Are you not well read on Enlightenment Theory? By living in society you submit yourself to the social contract, ie. that there are accepted rules for your safety and that of others, and to be a part of society you agree to follow those rules. When you break the contract, ie. break the rules, you’re punished for it. If you don’t like it then you work to change the rules or you leave.
And where in the Constitution does it say it’s wrong for law enforcement to confiscate illegal contraband? If it’s illegal, and you’re in possession of it, then law enforcement has every right to take it from you whether or not your personal sentiments are in agreement with that.
You know that in this country it is illegal to own the substance, and in knowing that you’re breaking the law you have no room to complain when the punishment is levied upon you. You have every right to question the rightness of the law, and you have every right to work to change it, but while it is law then there is no real argument for breaking it.
And as for arguing the economics of the subject, it’s a waste of time anyway because some people act as though this scenario and prohibition are the same, and as though economic theory works in a vacuum.
I was offering a brief critique. A contract is a voluntary agreement made between parties, therefore a) I must agree in order for this contract to be valid, and b) once either party to the contract has breached the agreement, the contract is null and void.
So, even if you wish to claim the U.S. Constitution as a “social contract,” the federal government broke that contract many times starting long ago. From Socrates to Aquinas to Luther to Locke to Jefferson … this “contract” is invalid and disobedience the proper response. What you are describing is Hobbes or Rosseau, which is an entirely other argument in itself.
The U.S. Constitution provides the government 18 enumerated powers. That’s it. So the correct question is 2-fold: Where in the Constitution is the fedgov provided the power to regulate what individuals ingest, and if they have this power, what was the point of passing the 18th amendment?
Socrates, Aquinas, Luther, Locke, Jefferson, the American revolutionaries, truth and justice be damned. You’re making the argument of the Divine Right of Kings. But this has nothing to do with our topic anyways.
You still haven’t answered my simple question: “Where do you derive this “right” to break into my home, exact violence against me, kidnap and lock me in a cage, and steal my property” … for ingesting a substance you don’t like?
I mean, where do rights come from? Are they ours by the nature of our being? Or are they simply edicts handed down to us by our Divine rulers?
It appears we have an epistemological problem.
I look forward to your response. This is a valuable conversation. My next reply however, will be as a complete post on my blog. Too much to discuss here, but I look forward to continuing.
The whole point of the social contract is that by participating and being a part of society, you implicitly agree to society’s rules. If you don’t like society’s rules, then you either work to change the rule or leave the society. If you break the rule, you must be prepared for the punishment that is due to you. Why? Because you would demand justice be done if any other law is broken. If someone is murdered, you demand that the perpetrator be brought to justice. If the perpetrator is not brought to justice, then society breaks down because there would no longer be any perceived force in law.
This has nothing to do with divine right. If the people of America, through their legislators, decide that there are substances that are dangerous and should be either regulated or banned altogether, then the people have the right to make that decision. If as a country we decide that the law itself is wrong and we wish to repeal it, then the people can do so. We live in a completely different time from Locke et al. In the 17th and 18th Centuries, people who indulged in excesses such as drugs were largely ostracized and looked down upon. They were not “gentlemen.” In today’s America, it’s almost passe and old fashioned to NOT indulge in such excesses. Our culture has suffered a complete reversal in which virtue and morality are not considered to be a high priority.
The Federal government has not broken that contract with the prohibition of drugs. Legislators, our elected representatives, legislated that certain substances are dangerous to the user and others around the user. Those substances were deemed illegal by force of law. And since those substances are illegal, the government has the right to seize those substances. That is implied by the 4th Amendment, as I’m sure you know. If law enforcement has a reasonable cause to believe that you own illegal contraband, whether it is an illegal substance or a weapon, the government has the right to seize it so long as they have a warrant to do so.
I’m not so naive as to believe that drugs are always seized legally, ie. there is a warrant behind the search and seizure, but the government does have that right. You don’t have to agree with it philosophically, but so long as it is law you are bound to adhere to it. If not, then what’s to bind anyone to any law that they feel is unjust?
Where in the Constitution is it enumerated that the government is allowed to regulate what sort of weapons a person is allowed to own? Why can’t I have a supressor for my AR-15? Why do I have to buy an AR-15 instead of being allowed to buy a true M-16? Why can my Baretta M-9 have a 9 round magazine but not a 15 round magazine? Why is it illegal for me to have a still in my home? Why can’t I drive my car as fast as I want when there’s no one on else on the road?
There are plenty of laws and regulations that are not enumerated by the Constitution. Most things not enumerated are reserved to the states, which is why gun laws and regulations are largely left up to the states. The Constitution was never meant to be an exhaustive list of laws, and we both know that. So to say that drug prohibition can’t be law because the Constitution doesn’t specifically say it can I think is not a strong argument.
Logically, if you suggested then that illegal drugs should be left up to the individual states, then I would have to support that.
I do have one quesiton of you: would you be okay living next to a meth lab?
Clear violations of the 2nd amendment.
Based on this theory, there’s no reason to have a constitution at all! If Congress can simply do whatever it wants, the constitution is meaningless.
I’ll reserve the rest of my response for a more detailed post. I’ll let you know so you may respond. Btw, I’m still waiting for you to answer my original question … I consider Jefferson’s definition of rights the best:
“[R]ightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”
No, those are not violations of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd Amendment says that we have the right to bear arms. It doesn’t say what type of arms we’re allowed to bear or whatever. Supressors and military-level magazines are not allowed to be owned by civilians because they are deemed for military use only. The government has every right to regulate fire-arms so long as people are allowed to own a firearm.
The theory that I am basing this on is not something I’ve cooked up. It’s basic Constitutional theory. The constitution was never supposed to be an exhaustive list of laws, but rather a guide-line of what constitutes a law that does not violate someone’s rights.
Where in the Constitution does it explicitly state that the government CANNOT tell us what harmful substances we can and cannot ingest? It doesn’t.
I have already answered your original question about where the government derives its right to enact “violence,” on you if you break the law. No, they can’t make arbitrary laws that are unconstitutional, but banning extremely harmful substances is hardly unconstitutional. Show me in the Constitution where it says the government CAN’T ban drugs, and I’ll concede.
Now answer my question: would you be okay with a person operating a meth lab next to your house?
Question 2: how do you feel about illegal immigrants? Should they break the law and come here illegally because they think it’s unjust?
“Now answer my question: would you be okay with a person operating a meth lab next to your house?”
Come to North Florida, my friend. Whether I’m OK with it or not, meth labs and meth heads do as they please virtually with impunity. And this after 40 years of vigorous law enforcement and aggressive prosecution!
I’ve got something for you to think about and a better question:
40 years ago not a single meth lab or meth head existed in North Florida. Why?
Well, according to the all powerful wikipedia, meth heads and meth labs started sprining up in the 1960′s. Crystal meth production and non-prescription use (yes, it was a prescription drug at one point) were not made illegal until 1983. So yes, 40 years ago, before the war on drugs, there were meth heads and home operated meth labs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine
Did I say, at any point, that the war on drugs has been effective? I’ve said nothing but the contrary: that it’s been a failure and we need to figure a better solution other than “give up and make drugs legal.” If someone tries to open up a meth lab next door to me, I want to know that I can call the cops and get those douche bags out. Don’t you wish the cops would do something about the meth labs that are apparently near you?
Read the entire article.
First and foremost it says this: “Synthesis [of meth] is relatively simple, but entails risk with flammable and corrosive chemicals, particularly the solvents used in extraction and purification; therefore, illicit production is often discovered by fires and explosions caused by the improper handling of volatile or flammable solvents. Most of the necessary chemicals are readily available in household products or over-the-counter cold or allergy medicines.”
This is in woeful contrast to your assertion above that drugs, “with the exception of pot, are not so easy to produce. How many people in America are going to go through the trouble to produce their own cocaine? How many people are going to risk the dangers of producing their own crystal meth? Probably very few.”
There are so many individuals brewing meth in North Florida that the cops can’t begin to stop it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the street brew “crack” cocaine is easy to produce too and much more dangerous and potent than the designer variety.
Moreover, the War on Drugs started in 1972. Meth was outlawed in 1983. Why do you suppose that was? Because when the government forced the safer and obvious drugs of choice underground, the drug dealers turned to something they could make cheaply and sell easily: crystal meth!
And what about this: “Until the early 1990s, methamphetamine for the U.S. market was made mostly in labs run by drug traffickers in Mexico and California… …As of 2007, drug and lab seizure data suggests that approximately 80 percent of the methamphetamine used in the United States originates from larger laboratories operated by Mexican-based syndicates on both sides of the border and that approximately 20 percent comes from small toxic labs (STLs) in the United States.”
You admit that the War on Drugs has been a failure (drugs and violence are everywhere now) yet you haven’t explained your mythical “solution” that would outlaw drugs (so you could call the cops on your douche bag neighbors) but at the same time not result in drugs and violence being everywhere BECAUSE they are outlawed. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Stop and think. If drugs were legal, your neighbors wouldn’t likely be cooking meth. They’d be buying it at Walgreens — or buying and using other cheaper and less dangerous designer drugs. The idea that you should be able to call the cops on your neighbors simply because they’re douche bags or because you don’t agree with their lifestyle is crazy!
There are plenty of laws on the books now against reckless endangerment, assault, trespassing, robbery, vandalism and the like. If your neighbor threatens you with one of these, call the cops. Otherwise, live and let live.
So the war on drugs started in 72. Well, according to the article, meth heads and home meth labs existed in the 60′s, so you’re still wrong on the timeline and your assertion that home meth labs started because of the war on drugs.
And not wanting a meth lab next door to me has NOTHING to do with lifestyle, and everything to do with safety. Do you realize how dangerous a home meth lab can be? I mean, aside from the horrendous fires that can spring from them, there’s also the noxious gasses that are produced from cooking meth.
Did I say there was a mythical solution? Nope. The point of this article was to argue that legalizing drugs will likely not solve any problems. To believe that all we have to do is let the poor, opressed, honest businessmen (drug lords) do their business out in the open in order to get them to stop killing people is fairly pie in the sky.
Do you honestly think that even if drugs were legalized you’d suddenly see crystal meth in a Walgreens? My bet is probably not. I have children, and not wanting a meth lab next to my home is about being able to raise my children in a relatively safe environment. You bet your ass I’d call the cops on my neighbors in a heart beat.
According to the article you referenced:“Until the early 1990s, methamphetamine for the U.S. market was made mostly in labs run by drug traffickers in Mexico and California… …As of 2007, drug and lab seizure data suggests that approximately 80 percent of the methamphetamine used in the United States originates from larger laboratories operated by Mexican-based syndicates on both sides of the border and that approximately 20 percent comes from small toxic labs (STLs) in the United States.”
If the problem is drug proliferation and violence, legalization is the solution.
It’s clear you have no solution.
I doubt meth will ever be sold at Walgreens — BUT IT SHOULD BE! Wouldn’t that be preferable to having a meth lab next to your home, which I remind you, might be the case now and you don’t even know it?
“The 1960s saw the start of significant use of clandestinely manufactured methamphetamine, as well as methamphetamine created in users’ own homes for personal and recreational use which continues to this day.”
That’s straight from the article. You only reading the parts that support your thesis?
Because of meth’s addictive and destructive nature, no it should not be sold in stores. It shouldn’t be sold anywhere or ingested by anyone. It contains no health benefit (other than it being used as an anesthetic in operations), and only leads to wasted lives.
My opinion: Your children have a better chance of being dealt drugs today than 40 years ago. Your children have a better chance today of being poisoned by bad drugs or killed or injured by drug dealers weilding guns or exploding meth labs than they did 40 years ago.
Believe what you want. Do what you want. I’m through jabbering.
Jack,
A response concerning the Constitutionality of the Drug War.
http://the-classic-liberal.com/war-constitution/
jack what peopl dont think about is beefing up our boarders even if it as legal why should cartels make money off us any longer we should close the boarder to mexcio make all drugs legal i mean im a grown man i pay taxes so what i want to fuck up my own health by using meth or coke or heroin its my life im not hurtin anyone but myself i take care of my kids they never go without they have everything they need im there for them emotionaly they get good grades im a great parent i know this is going to piss alot of people off but after i put mykids to bed i light up a blunt do a couple lines of meth get fucked hell i party like a rockstar but i still get my kids up make breakfast check ther homework and send them to school hell im closer to my kids then most of these all high and mighty drugs are bad people all im say is amercia is my fucking biz what i do i hope to see all drugs legal before i die.
What’s high and mighty about saying drugs are bad?
them peolpe that dont do drugs and never tried them all them old men writein our drug laws
So you’re saying that someone is “high and mighty,” if they restrict a substance that has zero health benefits and can very easily destroy a life through its use?
You might have used drugs before and discontinued (at least that’s my guess since you apparently have children and you’re able to hold a steady job). But these are highly addictive substances that seriously wreck lives. How many heroin users do you know are able to have any semblance of a healthy, happy life?
If I tell an obese person that their high-fat, sedentary lifestyle is unhealthy for them does that make me high and mighty? If I tell someone that it’s a bad idea to abuse alcohol, does that make me high and mighty?
No. I’m just stating facts. So stating that “drugs are bad,” is a simple fact, not a high and mighty judgment. You know why I don’t do drugs? Because it would wreck me like it wrecks everyone else. I’d rather stick to clean, healthy living. There’s nothing high and mighty about that.
Trackbacks: