Words Have Meanings

Clayton Cramer ^ | Saturday, May 9, 2015 | Clayton Cramer

[OK Sun]

M. Simon of Classical Values responded to a recent posting concerning Obamacare by linking to a piece by Milton Friedman "The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise". I confess to being so intrigued by the title that I read it to see where this came from. Socialism has a meaning: government ownership of the means of production. If Friedman's point was that there are two choices: free markets or command and control, this is true. But prohibiting something is not socialism. Many libertarian ideologues believe that drug prohibition is a net loss for the society emphasizing the substantial crime and corruption problems associated with prohibition. They are completely correct that these costs are high. Why have Americans been so interested in regulating intoxicants from the colonial period to the present. Not because they have nothing better for the government to do; but because the social costs of intoxication are very substantial. Drunks commit an astonishingly large fraction of the murders, rapes, robberies, and child molestations. Other intoxicants have similar rates of problems. If you want to argue that you favorite intoxicant (marijuana) isn't as bad as alcohol, you may well be right, but that is not an argument for legalizing pot and criminalizing alcohol. It may be an argument for putting more emphasis on discouraging alcohol, but it is not a persuasive argument against regulation.

There are substantial public health problems associated with all the intoxicants: cirrhosis of the liver; schizophrenia; AIDS. You might argue that these are properly the problems of individuals, and the government should not be socializing these costs. But this is America: liberty is not an option. Well before we reach the point where the population lets their drug addicted neighbors starve to death, the state will go bankrupt.

[muir_redwoods]

There are two kinds of people on earth; those who want to control others and those who want nothing to do with such an enterprise.

[Ken H]

Legal pot is here in America and it’s not going away. Get over it and move on to something important.

[corkoman]

No, banning a substance is not included in the definition of socialism. Socialism is, however, a brand of totalitarianism in which the State coerces citizens to bend to the States will. Instead of persuasion the State and like-minded totalitarians favor threats, intimidation and regulatory control.

Despite ever-present reminders of the folly of banning ethanol the totalitarian rascals continue down this path for all other substances.

And these include so-called conservatives who throw the concept of personal responsibility out the window while inviting the Nanny-state in through the front door.