Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Rush" Limbaugh and the Cocaine Price Support Program
email | Bill Walker

Posted on 10/20/2003, 4:07:19 PM by Sir Gawain

"Rush" Limbaugh and the Cocaine Price Support Program

The High Cost of Drug Prohibition

by Bill Walker

Rush Limbaugh has been exposed for routinely breaking US drug laws. We are told that this is "news". Apparently the 1.2 million US citizens arrested for drug "offenses" so far this year were not "news". Be that as it may, Rush's hypocrisy gives a good opportunity to review the US drug price support programs.

Some Price Supports Are More Equal Than Others

The US Department of Agriculture is spending about 74 billion dollars in FY 2003: here. Most of this money goes to the various direct and indirect price support programs that raise the cost of food. A few billion goes to various money-losing deforestation projects on public lands that raise the cost of plywood. The good thing about these price supports is that they are only applied at the level of the 'pushers' of crops or lumber. Farmers may go to prison for growing "too much" food, but users are not arrested for possession of peaches or white pine 2-by-4s. Why not? There is no logical answer; in time, food and/or plywood addicts may fill the prisons as well. This should concern anyone who may become addicted to using food or forest products. To understand how peaceful commodity purchases can become felonies, we have to understand how Rush Limbaugh's bloodstream became government property.

History of the Cocaine Price Support Program

The Cocaine Price Support Program (which today includes thousands of other commodities as well, such as Rush's Oxycontin, diamorphine, THC, testosterone, etc.; the program is sometimes referred to as the "Drug War", "Drug Prohibition", or "DARE") dwarfs all other price support programs. The Drug War is not contained within a single government department. The Drug War is not even contained within one government or group of governments, but is an integral part of them all. There are many urban legends claiming that one government or another (e.g., Holland) does not participate in the Drug War. Academic research has shown these rumors to be false.[1] The Drug War extends throughout the Solar System and beyond.

Drug price supports have a very short history, as government functions go. There were no US price supports for drugs of any kind until the Harrison Act (passed December 17 1914, took effect April 1915). The Harrison Act specifically reserved the rights of physicians to prescribe opiates. Within months this had been "interpreted" to mean the right to imprison physicians for prescribing opiates. The courts allowed this bizarre progression down into legal Wonderland, and the Federal government had its precedent. The bloodstream of all US citizens was now owned by a government agency, and prices of opiates and cocaine soared.

More widely felt at first than the Harrison Act was the Alcohol Price Support Program ('Prohibition'), Amendment XVIII, passed in 1919. While the APSP had some of the same effects as the Drug War (more murders, more deaths from adulterated products, etc)[2], it fell short of its potential for several reasons. The most prominent of these reasons was that Alcohol Prohibition operated within the US legal system, and thus died ignominiously in 1933 when it was repealed.

The Drug War did not repeat this mistake. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and the other informal traditions of the Drug War simply asserted their own legitimacy, with no appeal to Constitutional authority. In fact, many government agencies draw the authority for their actions from their alleged usefulness to the Drug War. The invasion of Panama, the foreign aid to the Taliban regime and other dictatorships, and many other semi-clandestine extra-legal activities have no authority other than that which they draw from the semi-clandestine, extra-legal Drug War.

The Inversion of Authority

This new inverted authority supersedes all other civil authority, in the same way that the witch manias of medieval Europe did. At this point in history the entire US population, drug-using or not, lives in a state of perpetual Double Secret Probation. At any time of day or night, black-masked hoodlums waving German submachine guns and cursing wildly may kick in your doors, shoot you and/or your dogs and throw your family on the floor. Your property may be forfeited without trial. And just as in the witch manias, all sorts of false testimony can be used against you without recourse. If the ritually masked hoodlums bring their own drugs with them, and "find" them on your property, you are guilty. (In Dallas, they only have to "find" some billiard chalk... but that is another story).

Note to the masked hoodlums of Dallas: Unlike our recent Presidents, I have never used any illegal drugs of any kind, and most of my friends are biologists and chemists. So don't try the billiard chalk stunt on me, you bastards.

Conspiracy Theories of Drug Price Supports

There are many in the mainstream media who promote a conspiratorial origin of the Drug War. Their claim is that the Congress, CIA, DEA, etc. (all groups noted for their altruism and concern for the common man) are engaged in a massive conspiracy to promote public health by raising the cost of certain drugs. Like most conspiracy theories, it is somewhat nondisprovable as to its claims for the motivations of the political classes. However, we can disprove the notion that raising the cost of drugs to users is good for them.

There have been many controlled experiments in this field. Take the previously mentioned case of US alcohol Prohibition. Deaths from adulterated alcohol soared during Prohibition, then went back down after repeal. Murder rates also went up, as did the economic cost of providing alcohol. Alcoholism rates were not affected. Then to add insult to injury, modern studies have proved that moderate alcohol consumption is an important component of cardiac health. So it's a good thing that Prohibition failed so completely, or millions would have suffered early heart attacks.

Another controlled experiment was Canada's attempt to put a $5 tax on cigarettes. Mass smuggling began immediately through the Mohawk Nation, with the usual murders and mayhem. Did Canadians quit smoking because their nicotine cost more? Did anyone expect them to? Of course not. New York has tried the same thing many times, with similar consequences: here

The same story is repeated with opiates and cocaine. Before the Harrison Act, Americans used cocaine and opiates. Just like Rush Limbaugh, most of them used their drugs to overcome the various pains of life, while continuing to hold down their jobs and live their lives. Cheap heroin and cocaine didn't cause financial havoc for the users. And of course, most people weren't affected... because they didn't touch the stuff. Abstinence was somewhat promoted by the fact that drugstore sellers of legal drugs didn't come into the junior high schools and push their wares.

Death rates from illegal drugs are less than precise. Still, it is clear that hundreds of thousands of people die from tobacco use yearly, while deaths from all illegal drugs are estimated to be in the neighborhood of 5,000. Deaths from alcoholism and alcohol/drug interactions are in the tens of thousands; overdose deaths from marijuana (a drug with some substitution potential for alcohol) are zero.

The final nail in the benevolent-conspiracy theory is this: it is forbidden to sell safer alternative recreational drugs. The pharmaceutical companies are quite capable of providing drugs that mimic alcohol, nicotine, or whatever you want with fewer side effects... but there is no FDA category for "recreational drug". Anyone who tries to save the cirrhotic liver of the alcoholic will be locked up. This shows that whatever the motivation of the Drug War, it isn't concern for health.

The Costs of Drug Price Supports

Cost #1: Taxes. The US government claims that the direct tax costs of Prohibition are about 39 billion dollars this year. (Source: here) Now, this is only the direct costs for openly designated Drug War programs. While 39 billion dollars every single year may not seem like much to politicians, in an absolute sense it is a lot of money. For instance, if the biotech industry had an extra 39 billion in capital every year, cancer could be wiped out in a few years. Like so many government programs, however, the direct tax costs are nothing compared to the effects of the programs themselves.

Cost #2: The high cost of illegal drugs. All estimates of this cost are suspect (they are provided by those with a vested interest in making the problem appear as big as possible). But while the actual number of drug users may be open to debate, there is no question that legal heroin and cocaine only cost about as much as aspirin; marijuana is literally a weed. Now that they are illegal, they cost the economy tens of billions.

Cost #3: Loss of labor. As mentioned earlier, about 1.5 million people are arrested for drug possession and/or sale every year. When these people are making license plates instead of working their normal jobs, their productivity is lost to the economy.

Cost #4: Real (not victimless) crime. Murder has soared since the Drug War expanded in the 1970s: here Other crime rates attained heights in recent decades that make the Wild West look like Amish country. Inner-city youth can find easy "careers" as drug distributors. If drugs were legalized, these careers would disappear, along with drive-by shootings and "gangsta culture".

Cost #5: Terrorism. Every half-baked wannabe dictator with a few AK-47s can fund his nonproductive lifestyle with illegal drug sales. From the Taliban to the FARC in Colombia, terrorist groups make money from the US drug trade. If cocaine and heroin cost no more than aspirin, all these moochers would have to get real jobs.

And of course, all the law enforcement effort and prison space that goes into catching and jailing marijuana users is not available to look for murderers and terrorists. After 9-11, supposedly our politician's priorities changed... but they didn't. Any serious attempt to catch terrorists smuggling weapons doesn't have a chance of finding them among the thundering herds of drug smugglers.

So.... Why Drug Price Supports?

Drug Prohibition's costs are obviously much greater than any possible benefits... to the general public. So why does every political hack from Rush Limbaugh to the most leftist Democrat advocate Drug Prohibition? For the same reason that politicians support price supports for milk or plywood: they increase the power of politicians. All price supports confer arbitrary power on those who administer them. Every "cost" I've listed above is a "profit" for the parasitic class. Let's run through them again:

Cost #1: Taxes. The US government claims that the direct tax costs of Prohibition are about 39 billion dollars this year.

To the politician, a pointless bureaucracy isn't a cost. It's a source of patronage and contracts.

Cost #2: The high cost of illegal drugs. To the politician, an artificially high price isn't a cost. It's a source he can use to fund his friends and influence foreign countries.

Cost #3: Loss of labor. The ability to lock political opponents up at will is worth billions to any politician. Not to mention, felons can't vote or own firearms, so the more convicts, the fewer effective political opponents. Of course politicians' children may get arrested occasionally for Prohibition violations, but that just makes them more dependent on Dear Old Dad.

And like any other bureaucracy, the prison industry is a source of patronage and contracts.

Cost #4: Real (not victimless) crime. There was no Federal gun control in the US until after Prohibition; US citizens had machine guns, artillery pieces, tanks, whatever. The first national gun control law was passed in the 1930s, supposedly as an anti-gangster measure; it put a $200 tax on great- Grandpa's tommy gun. Today's gun control is justified as an anti- "gangsta" measure; supposedly if we confiscate Grandma's .38, this will prevent drive-by shootings from inner-city youth using illegal full-auto AKs. While not heavily dependent on logic, the support for gun control is driven largely by the violence caused by Prohibition.

Cost #5: Terrorism. Needless to say, terrorism is not a "cost" to those who want to expand government power. Drug Prohibition can be used by the US Imperator as a casus belli against any nation anywhere, for what nation does not "harbor" evil drug lords who sell their wares in the US? Drug Prohibition can be used as an excuse to give foreign aid to literally any regime; remember, even the Taliban received "anti-drug" money.[3] And finally the drug trade can be manipulated to divert money from one regime to another by selective anti- smuggling enforcement.

The Obvious Solutions

The obvious solution for the productive classes is to abolish all price supports, whether for milk, cocaine, or prescription painkillers. Abolition of Drug Prohibition in the US would effectively end it worldwide. This would return trillions of dollars and millions of people to productive work, and divert their support from the parasitic classes around the world.

The obvious solution is different for Rush Limbaugh (and all other members of the parasitic classes). Rush will suffer through a pointless "rehab", get a more discreet Oxycontin dealer, and go back to loudly and vigorously supporting the Cocaine Price Support Program... with half his brain tied up with synthetic opiates behind his back.


References

1. http://www.independent.org/tii/media/pdf/tir72levine.pdf

2. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121es.html

3. http://cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-071es.html


Bill Walker (telomerase2@aol.com) is a Research Associate at the Shay-Wright lab at UT Southwestern Medical Center.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: pufflist; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-327 next last

1 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:07:19 PM by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Wod_list; AAABEST; Abundy; Uncle Bill; billbears; Victoria Delsoul; Fiddlstix; fporretto; ...
-
2 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:07:49 PM by Sir Gawain (Stop acting like Richard Cranium)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Under benefits, add in the huge influx of capital to worldwide financial institutions. Can you imagine what would happen to the economy if all that diry money just up and disappeared?
3 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:14:34 PM by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Unfortunately, the voters still believe in the WOD. Especially upper-middle class mommies with teens in high school. I often argue with these citizens, pointing out that the first place I would go to find out where to get illegal drugs is, of course, their local high school. Their solution is always stiffer penalties for the evil drug "pusher".
4 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:15:44 PM by JmyBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JmyBryan
That's because upper-middle class teens go on the rehab track, instead of the punishment track. Of course, that's by design, as it allows the Drug War machinery to plow onward without too much complaining from the people who count.
5 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:18:33 PM by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
End the WOD

Think of it as Evolution in Action.

So9

6 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:20:29 PM by Servant of the 9 (A Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Econ 101 tells us lower price means higher demand and consumption.

Also, lower price can more than make up for lower price, creating huge increases in profit, demand and total market size. The computer industry is a perfect example of this.
Profits can be huge on mass-market goods.

McCrack outlets anyone?

Legalize it, and the 'dirty money' will become 'legal money' landing in the pockets of lobbyists,congressmen, and others trying to convince us that bad habits that cost us money, sanity and health are actually okay.
Look at gambling. Used to be small-time and "dirty"... Now gambling money buys elections!
7 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:21:44 PM by WOSG (QUESTION STUPIDITY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Rush is getting help to stop future dependancy. He's setting a good example to all drug users.
There. That ends this e-mail.
Drugs are dangerous things. Never legalize them, or support them in any way.
America let homosexuality slide, and now we're spending millions to find a cure for their plagues. Abortion was legalized, and now America has billions of dead children in garbage bags on their conscience, and even the children are killing children.
If it doesn't promote life , stop it. America is on a down hill path the way it is. Without a drastic turn around, image the U.S. another generation from now.

No. Fight the drug wars. It has to be done. Purfume can cover the stench, but the stench will still be there.

8 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:22:04 PM by concerned about politics ( Have you donated to the Salvation Army? Liberals HATE Christian organizations! Tax deductable, too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Tax Crack and Heroin - Balance THe Budget Tommorrow!!
9 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:23:13 PM by .cnI redruM (The September 11th attacks were clearly Clinton's most consequential legacy. - Rich Lowry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Never legalize them, or support them in any way.

You mean re-legalize.

10 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:24:58 PM by Sir Gawain (Stop acting like Richard Cranium)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Everything's going according to plan.

Truly, this is the best of all possible worlds!
11 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:28:05 PM by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Econ 101 tells us lower price means higher demand and consumption

You went to a bad biz school. Lower prices can affect consumption but if it does so it satisfies and therefore reduces demand.

You cant have your coke and eat it too.

12 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:29:53 PM by corkoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Drugs are dangerous things. Never legalize them, or support them in any way.

Ok - from now on you are not to take ANY drugs. Including antibiotocs and hypertension drugs - the whole lot. Dont or you should turn yourself in to the authorities.

Dope.

13 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:31:51 PM by corkoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: corkoman
huh? Your comment is wholly oxymoronic!

Lower price yields higher consumption.

If you find a single economist to dispute that, cite him or her.
14 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:34:55 PM by WOSG (QUESTION STUPIDITY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
huh? Your comment is wholly oxymoronic! Lower price yields higher consumption. If you find a single economist to dispute that, cite him or her.

I'll let you read it again before I call you a moron.

15 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:36:08 PM by corkoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: corkoman
Ok - from now on you are not to take ANY drugs. Including antibiotocs and hypertension drugs - the whole lot. Dont or you should turn yourself in to the authorities.

LOL. I don't take them anyway.
Our proscription drug cost for our whole family is $0.00.
Believe it or not, those things you mentioned can be controled just fine with simple food and weeds. LOL.

"...and they would not repent of their pharmaceuticals (Pharmacudici)."

16 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:38:59 PM by concerned about politics ( Have you donated to the Salvation Army? Liberals HATE Christian organizations! Tax deductable, too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WOSG; corkoman
He's right. If its a product that people don't want, you can lower the price all you want and people will not buy it, if it doesn't satisfy the consumer.

Is the onlything stopping you from giving coke a try because it's $80? You and your family would give it a try if the price dropped to $5?

17 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:39:21 PM by bird4four4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Econ 101 tells us lower price means higher demand and consumption

Actually, the postulate is that when the price goes down, the QUANTITY DEMANDED goes up, not the Demand. Quantity demanded is due to a change in price, while a change in Demand is due to anything else.

Look at gambling. Used to be small-time and "dirty"... Now gambling money buys elections!

Of course, when casinos give money to politicians, it's a matter of public record and campaign finance disclosure laws apply. When a drug cartel does it, no one hears about it, we are secretly subjugated to it's effects. Neither is ideal, but which causes less harm? I would say bringing it into the open.
18 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:39:51 PM by adam_az
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Thank's for the great article
MSNBC will air a propaganda story on white collar percription(sp) drug addicts, Starting @1:30 10/20/2003 on Drugs used by white collar people , you can send your comments and questions before hand .
19 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:39:56 PM by Boner1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: corkoman
That's a funny way you have of being wrong ...

"Econ 101 tells us lower price means higher demand and consumption" is true.

100% true. Dispute it? give a cite.

You'll find this truth in any basic econ 101 exposition of the supply-demand curve, eg:

http://www.ncee.net/ea/standards/standard.php?sid=8
"High prices for a good or service provide incentives for buyers to purchase less of that good or service, and for producers to make or sell more of it. Lower prices for a good or service provide incentives for buyers to purchase more of that good or service, and for producers to make or sell less of it."

You have a mistaken understanding of "demand" btw, check:
http://www.facsnet.org/tools/ref_tutor/econo_term/glossary.html

20 posted on 10/20/2003, 4:43:15 PM by WOSG (QUESTION STUPIDITY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-327 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson