Posted on 01/01/2007 5:13:06 PM PST by G. Stolyarov II
I personally find all currently illegal drugs loathsome; they stunt the mind, inhibit the body, and curtail productivity. I would never consume such substances myself, and I would advise others against doing so. Yet, compared to the adverse effects of their illegalization, the harm of drugs themselves is small indeed. Drug-taking is extremely unhealthy for the persons engaging in it, but not for anybody who abstains from it. The “War on Drugs,” by contrast, harms everybody subject to a government that undertakes it. I have no sympathy for drug addicts; I wish to argue the case of the innocent, moral, productive people who have never used such substances in their lives but are nonetheless harmed by the coercive illegalization of drugs.
There are ethical problems with drug-taking, but the ethical problems with the War on Drugs far exceed them. Let us presume that someone has decided to ruin his life by consuming harmful drugs. That decision alone would likely deny him the voluntary association of respectable people; these respectable people would thus not be damaged by any adverse consequences to the drug-taker’s health, career, and personality. By the very fact of strongly disapproving of drug-consumption on an ethical basis, one shields oneself from the adverse consequences of drug-consumption. This would be the case on a free market; the only damage from drug-taking would come to the drug addict himself—not to respectable others.
Yet this is not the case under a government-waged War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is waged with taxpayer money—which especially means the money of respectable, well-to-do people, who are taxed higher under the perverse “progressive” or punitive tax system. Thus, to regulate and thwart the activities of the addicts, the government expropriates substantial property from moral, productive people who do not even think about consuming illegal drugs. To punish the self-destructive, the government must also punish the self-improving and deprive them of the fruits of and the incentives for their self-improvement.
The War on Drugs is generous to drug addicts and punitive to all others; the drug addicts are arrested at others’ expense and given “free” food and “free” lodging at government prisons—free to the imprisoned, that is, but paid for by the taxpayers. Why should moral people pay to sustain others for those others’ immoral conduct? Why should the drug addicts be given state handouts and be spared the requirement to earn their own living on the free market? Prison conditions may be miserable, but they are granted to the drug addicts automatically—as a taxpayer-funded gift for having broken a silly law. Why should drug addicts deserve even poor-quality food and shelter for ruining their lives?
The War on Drugs harms innocent schoolchildren, who are at risk of being suspended or expelled by draconian public school administrators for bringing in sugar, salt, aspirin, or other “drug look-alikes.”
In the inner cities, the War on Drugs harms anyone who does not engage in drug consumption; it subjects them to the tyranny of black-market drug gangs, which have by now usurped control of certain ghettoes. The government prohibits peaceful, overt trade in drugs, but it cannot legislate away demand for them. The demand persists, and some suppliers are still willing to satisfy it. With supply artificially reduced by the government, potential profits are higher for those who manage to enter the black market for drugs—if they avoid government detection and arrest. The armed thug will be far more effective at dodging the law than the otherwise legitimate businessman, since the armed thug is unscrupulous about using any means necessary to achieve his aim. The thug’s competitors and associates in the illegal drug trade will have no legal recourse if he wrongs them; they must either submit to his brute force or arm themselves in response.
Thus is created the environment of competing heavily armed drug gangs—willing to murder to gain black market share. Such drug gangs are far more effective at seizing power than ordinary citizens; it should come as no surprise that the gangs should eventually begin to terrorize and extort even those not directly connected to the drug trade. What opportunities would a poor but respectable resident of the inner city have to rise economically in such a climate? If he seeks employment, the armed thugs have driven out all legitimate businesses. He might be able to create a business of his own—if he pays the drug lords an occasional cut of his profits, which is likely to be more substantial than any government-imposed tax. Furthermore, while government bureaucracy may be frustrating, a bureaucrat will not shoot a citizen who displeases him on the spot. One’s economic future in drug-gang-controlled areas is far more volatile than even under heavily interventionist and capricious but non-thuggish bureaucracies.
Most likely, the inner-city resident will not bother with the dangers of opening his own business or finding a productive job. Rather, he will be inclined to stay home, keep a low profile, receive his welfare check, and gradually disintegrate.
The War on Drugs restricts the mobility of virtually everybody, as the inner-city ghettoes are no longer safe for respectable, well-to-do people to even walk around in. The War on Drugs hurts everybody who has been robbed, mugged, or killed by the black-market gangs that the illegalization of drugs has created.
The War on Drugs fundamentally harms Americans culturally. By dividing the ghettoes into the drug gangs and the slothful welfare recipients who are too afraid to leave their homes, the government has inadvertently created the American ghetto culture: a culture of dissipation, vulgarity, insolence, indolence, foul language, deceit, promiscuity, brutality, and violence—indeed, an anti-culture. This culture is eagerly romanticized and popularized by the leftist mass media and damages the morals of many who indiscriminately absorb it. The War on Drugs has been indirectly responsible for the widespread decline in tastes in music, art, clothing, and lifestyles during the past half-century.
When compared to the expropriation of honest, productive citizens, the punishment of innocent children, the stifling of inner-city residents’ opportunities and aspirations, the massive increase in crime and black-market activity, the restriction of territorial mobility, and the corruption of culture, the harms of drug consumption are slight indeed. Let the drug addicts ruin their own lives; it is their business, not ours. We may object ethically to their conduct, but let us persuade—not coerce—them away from their pursuits. If we try coercion, we will only be imposing far greater harms on ourselves.
UR NUTZ! Please go to DU. The War in Drugs can be won, ikn large part, by closing the Border.
If you stick around, I won't be the last
ping
"Can I be the first to call you a loserdopertarian?"
Have you even *read* the *first few sentences* of my article? About how I loathe drugs and have no sympathy with those taking them?
Your accusation is thus ignorant, unfounded, and unconnected with anything I have written.
Congratulations on publicly embarassing yourself.
I am
G. Stolyarov II
http://rationalargumentator.com
You stay right here. There are many out here in FR who don't do drugs but hate the WOsD
Pay no attention to that poster. "Loserdopian" is the classic knee-jerk ad-hominem attack from the pro-Drug Warriors, since they're unable to use facts defending the stupid WOD.
No-one here ever *reads* articles about the War on Some Drugs.
2. Your accusation is thus ignorant, unfounded, and unconnected with anything I have written.
Yes it was. Just giving you a taste of the welcome you'll get here. (And darn it, I wasn't even first) As I said, if you are going to hang about here, get used to that.
3. Congratulations on publicly embarassing yourself.
Nobody gets my irony.
"Nobody gets my irony."
Point well taken. Thank you for the clarification.
Just because we're outnumbered here is no reason to surrender
Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate your readership and encouragement.
As much as 70% of illicit drugs enter the US from our southern border. Americans spent in excess of an estimated $69 billion last year in illegal drugs. Closing the southern border to unregulated entries could provide as much as a $40 billion annual reduction in supply.
Citation Please
It relies on and helps legitimize open-ended federal bureaucratic regulatory authority under the New Deal Commerce Clause (to quote Clarence Thomas, "every blade of grass").
It lends itself to indoctrination programs (DARE) written and administered by liberal/socialist activists (the RWJF) and gives them substantial input into formulating public policy.
It has produced, in a supposedly self-governing nation, the paradoxical existence of a federal agency (the ONDCP) who's job it is to oppose any attempt by the people to change the law.
If you're going to start complaining about taxes supporting things you disagree with, then you're going to be complaining forever. There are plenty of things my taxes pay for that I disagree with. However, keeping harmful drugs illegal is one of the better causes.
The War on Drugs is generous to drug addicts and punitive to all others; the drug addicts are arrested at others’ expense and given “free” food and “free” lodging at government prisons—free to the imprisoned, that is, but paid for by the taxpayers. Why should moral people pay to sustain others for those others’ immoral conduct? Why should the drug addicts be given state handouts and be spared the requirement to earn their own living on the free market? Prison conditions may be miserable, but they are granted to the drug addicts automatically—as a taxpayer-funded gift for having broken a silly law. Why should drug addicts deserve even poor-quality food and shelter for ruining their lives?
The same argument can be made for murders, rapists, pickpockets and any other criminal. Why not just legalize every illegal activity and really solve the problem?
The War on Drugs harms innocent schoolchildren, who are at risk of being suspended or expelled by draconian public school administrators for bringing in sugar, salt, aspirin, or other “drug look-alikes.”
Please. Most kids would love getting a day or two off from school until the misunderstanding is taken care of. And how often do you really think this is being done? Any statistics?
Thus is created the environment of competing heavily armed drug gangs—willing to murder to gain black market share.
And magically all of these thugs and criminals are going to become honest, law abiding citizens as soon as drugs become legal? I don't think so. They're criminals for a reason and that reason isn't because drugs are illegal.
The War on Drugs fundamentally harms Americans culturally. By dividing the ghettoes into the drug gangs and the slothful welfare recipients who are too afraid to leave their homes, the government has inadvertently created the American ghetto culture: a culture of dissipation, vulgarity, insolence, indolence, foul language, deceit, promiscuity, brutality, and violence—indeed, an anti-culture. This culture is eagerly romanticized and popularized by the leftist mass media and damages the morals of many who indiscriminately absorb it. The War on Drugs has been indirectly responsible for the widespread decline in tastes in music, art, clothing, and lifestyles during the past half-century.
Most conservatives would blame this on liberalism in general .
http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion19.htm
"[T]he value of the global illicit drug market for the year 2003 was estimated at US$13 bn [billion] at the production level, at $94 bn at the wholesale level (taking seizures into account), and at US$322bn based on retail prices and taking seizures and other losses into account. This indicates that despite seizures and losses, the value of the drugs increase substantially as they move from producer to consumer."
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), World Drug Report 2005 (Vienna, Austria: UNODC, June 2005), p. 127.
"In 2000, Americans spent about $36 billion on cocaine, $10 billion on heroin, $5.4 billion on methamphetamine, $11 billion on marijuana, and $2.4 billion on other substances."
Source: Abt Associates, "What America's Users Spend on Illegal Drugs 1988-2000" (Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control, December 2001), p. 2.
Analysis: The value of the illicit drug market is extremely difficult to estimate. The few serious attempts which have been made have resulted in widely varying figures. In the first excerpt above, from the Miami Herald, the figure of $400 billion was given. That estimate can be found in a United Nations publication issued in 1998, "Economic and Social Consequences of Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking," and was until early in 2005 cited in Drug War Facts. According to the UN in 1998:
"With estimates of $100 billion to $110 billion for heroin, $110 billion to $130 billion for cocaine, $75 billion for cannabis and $60 billion for synthetic drugs, the probable global figure for the total illicit drug industry would be approximately $360 billion. Given the conservative bias in some of the estimates for individual substances, a turnover of around $400 billion per annum is considered realistic. This figure can be compared to estimates of more than $500 billion which are based solely on the average of minimum and maximum prices in the United States."
Source: United Nations Drug Control Program, "Economic and Social Consequences of Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking," Technical Series No. 6, 1998, p. 55
The same argument can be made for murders, rapists, pickpockets and any other criminal.
murders, rapists, pickpocketry fall into the "harm to other people" column. No problem with making that illegal.
You can even pass laws against DUI or negligent discharge of a firearm in a public place, witout banning alcohol or guns.
a day or two off from school until the misunderstanding is taken care of.
Guess you are not up to date on the Zero Tolerance thing
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
May I add my voice to those welcoming you. I also agree that you will need to get used to the opposition. I have browsed your article and will thoroughly peruse it later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.