The Harms of Drugs versus the Harms of the War on Drugs

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.

I would like to tell you about my recent experience with the WoD.

A couple weeks ago, one of my former friends was mad at me for talking to some girl he like, or something stupid like that. So he goes up to one of the local Sheriff's Deputies and tells them that I'm dealing meth out of my house.

The next day two Deputies take me in and sit me in the interrogation room and tell me that they know I'm dealing meth and want me to give a urine sample and let them search my house to prove that I'm not using. I laughed and told him that I have a right to privacy and don't need to submit to anything. The Deputy looked me right in the eyes and said, and these are his actual words, "You have no rights, f**k your rights. We have a duty to protect this children of this county."

What is this country coming to? Now I have to move to a different county just because I'm terrified the cops will pull me in for no reason again.

BTW, to avoid spending the next 72 hours in jail, I submitted a urine sample and let them search my house. I was clean of meth and none was found at my residence. But I am strongly considering a lawsuit of some kind because this just doesn't seem right.

You stay right here. There are many out here in FR who don't do drugs but hate the WOsD

I'm one of those people. I don't do drugs. (unless you consider caffeine and nicotine a drug in which case you are free to call me a hypocrite) Sure, I smoked pot back in college 20 years ago. The crap never agreed with me, it just made me paranoid.

But as my idol and adopted grandfather Milton Friedman said when he was criticized by the Wall Street Journal 30 years ago for being one of the few "intellectuals" who signed on against the WOD; "If Government can tell you what to put into your body, they can also tell you what you can write in your paper."

When they came for the employees of the oldest profession in the world, I did not speak out, as I had no interest in purchasing sex.

When they came for the purveyors of what was deemed to be "obscene" or "offensive", I did not speak out, as I was not a fan of entertainers like Lenny Bruce or Howard Stern.

When they came to ban the female mammary gland from TV, I did not speak out, because Brian Boitano told me not to.

When they came for the people who don't wear seatbelts, I did not speak out, as I always wore my seatbelt.

When they came for the marijuana smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a marijuana smoker.

When they came for the steroid users, I did not speak out, as I was not a steroid user.

When they came for the pornographers, I did not speak out, as I was not a pornographer.

When they came for the gun owners, I did not speak out, as I was not a gun owner.

When they came for the gamblers, I did not speak out, as I was not a gambler.

When they came for the cigarette smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a smoker.

When they came for the overweight and the obese, I did not speak out, as I was not overweight or obese.

When they came for the drinkers (again), I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.

Then they came for me...and there was nobody left to speak out.

I'm sure you realize that this (WOD) is more of an intellectual argument as opposed to a practical matter.

Think of it this way: There are many instances where federal/state Representatives vote for a bill knowing full well that the President/Governor will veto it or the US/State Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional.

Unless you are actually on drugs, nobody believes that meth, heroin, or cocaine will ever be legal. Some US city might eventually make pot legal.

It's a subtle argument that proponents of limited government need to confront and talk about openly. If only in theory and for the advancement of political science.

You will disagree and take it literally. Should pot be legal? IMHO, yeah why not? We advertise alcohol on TV ad nauseam. So Gubmint has decided that drugs are legal and we're just haggling over which ones are OK and which ones aren't.

But I don't think that you believe that heroin, coke or meth should be made legal. The line has to be drawn SOMEWHERE. Right?

"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."

Even if it was possible to completely seal our southern border, and that isn't possible, we'd just see an awful lot more drug production in this country and Canada. Building a fence along our border with Mexico and manning it with thousands of troops and carefully searching every single truck or passenger vehicle that drives through our border checkpoints would no doubt make it harder to get drugs across the border. The demand wouldn't go away though, and potential profits would rise with prices, so people would still figure out ways to get the drugs in. We'd see more bribery of border guards, more tunnels, more use of aircraft (both manned and remote control), more submarines, etc. We'd see drugs bypassing Mexico and coming in from other countries in shipping containers or over the Canadian border. We'd end up having to build a fence there too and manning it with thousands of troops, and we'd have to do a lot better job patrolling the seas and sky to stop all the dope coming in on boats and submarines and aircraft. The smugglers will always find the path of least resistance.

We could probably make it a lot more costly to get drugs into this country though. But one thing you'd see with that is a lot more domestic production. We're already seeing, for instance, a lot more pot growing in our national forests by organized crime. If smuggling becomes a lot more expensive, the Mexicans would probably just give up on smuggling marijuana because it's too bulky and it doesn't bring in nearly as much money for a given weight or volume as do drugs like cocaine and heroin. The Colombians gave up on smuggling marijuana into this country years ago for the most part in favor of cocaine. Smugglers would have to focus on the hard stuff that is much more dense and easier to conceal and therefore easier to smuggle. It's also worth a lot more money. I little bit of that stuff is far more expensive than the same weight or volume of Mexican marijuana. Demand for marijuana would remain so they'd just grow more in our national forests, and focus more on quality over quantity because it's harder to get away with growing huge fields of pot here than it is in Mexico so the way they keep their profits up is to grow a more potent product that will command a higher price. Likewise, we'll see a lot more of the really super potent indoor stuff. Instead of all these thousands of tons of cheap relatively low potency Mexican marijuana on our streets, we'll see a lot of far more potent domestically grown marijuana. It will cost more than Mexican, but of course it will take a lot less of it to get you high, so people probably won't end up spending much more to maintain their habits.

If there are shortages of drugs like cocaine and heroin what will happen is that addicts will just take other similar drugs. Heroin addicts who can't find heroin will buy Oxycontin. Cocaine addicts who can't find cocaine will use amphetamines or methamphetamine. If there are any shortages of drugs like heroin or cocaine not normally produced here (a big "if"), we'll likely see more domestic production of "replacement drugs" to satisfy demand for these drugs. In the end, the demand will be met and Americans might actually spend more on drugs than they do now. And since Mexican organized crime dominates the lion's share of our illegal drug markets, a lot of that money will still end up in Mexico, and much of that doesn't end up here will end up in other countries that take up the slack for the Mexicans.

I'm not really opposed to building a fence along the Mexican border, but it won't solve the drug problem in this country. People that want to take drugs will still be able to find their drugs and together they'll still spend billions and billions and billions of dollars a year.

I proofread that post after I had already posted it. I made a few types and one in particular was bad enough that the sentence really didn't make sense.

"And since Mexican organized crime dominates the lion's share of our illegal drug markets, a lot of that money will still end up in Mexico, *and much of that doesn't end up here will end up in other countries..."

The point I was trying to make there is that because Mexicans tend to dominate our drug markets, at least on the wholesale end, a lot of the money Americans spend on drugs will still end up in Mexico. Some of the profits might shift to other countries because people from other countries that can develop new smuggling routes will take advantage of that. In the end, a lot of drug money will still end up leaving this country and going into the coffers of foreign organized crime.

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.