Posted on 01/08/2013 10:59:00 AM PST by Kaslin
Forty-odd (exceedingly odd, I might add) years ago, who would have envisioned a national war against drugs? Nobody took drugs -- nobody you knew, nobody but jazz musicians and funny foreign folk. Then, after a while, it came to seem that everybody did. Drugs became a new front in the war on an old social culture that was taking hard licks aplenty in those days.
I still don't understand why people take drugs. Can't they just pour themselves a nice shot of bourbon? On the other hand, as Gary S. Becker and Kevin M. Murphy argue, in a lucid piece for the Wall Street Journal's Review section, prison populations have quintupled since 1980, in large degree thanks to laws meant to decrease drug usage by prohibiting it; 50,000 Mexicans may have died since 2006 in their country's war against traffickers, and addiction has probably increased.
Becker, a Nobel laureate in economics, and Murphy, a University of Chicago colleague, argue for putting decriminalization of drugs on the table for national consideration. The federal war on drugs, which commenced in 1971, was supposed to discourage use by punishing the sale and consumption of drugs. It hasn't worked quite that way.
"[T]he harder governments push the fight," the two argue, "the higher drug prices become to compensate the greater risks. That leads to larger profits for traffickers who avoid being punished." It can likewise lead "dealers to respond with higher levels of violence and corruption." In the meantime, Becker and Murphy point out, various states have decriminalized marijuana use or softened enforcement of existing prohibitions. Barely two months ago, voters in Colorado and Washington made their own jurisdictions hospitable to the friendly consumption of a joint.
The two economists say full decriminalization of drugs would, among other things, "lower drug prices, reduce the role of criminals in producing and selling drugs, improve many inner-city neighborhoods, [and] encourage more minority students in the U.S. to finish high school." To the Journal's question, "Have we lost the war on drugs?" 89.8 percent of readers replied, "Yes."
One isn't deeply surprised to hear it. National tides seem presently to be running in favor of abortion and gay marriage -- two more elements of the culture wars that began, contemporaneously, with the battle for the right to puff pot. Swimming against powerful tides is no politician's idea of a participatory sport. Conceivably, armed with practical (i.e., $$$$$$) reasons for decriminalizing drugs, advocates of such a policy course will prevail. We can then sit around wondering what all the fuss was about.
What it was about -- you had to have been there to remember now -- was the defense of cultural inhibitions. Sounds awful, doesn't it?
As the counterculture saw things, inhibitions -- voluntary, self-imposed restraints -- dammed up self-expression, self-realization. They dammed up a lot more than that, in truth: much of it in serious need of restraint and prevention.
The old pre-1960s culture assigned a higher role to the head than to the heart. Veneration of instincts risked the overthrow of social guardrails that inhibited bad, harmful and anti-social impulses. The drug culture that began in the '60s elevated to general popularity various practices, modes, devices, and so forth that moved instinct -- bad or good, who cared? -- to the top of the scale of values. There was a recklessness about the enterprise -- do whatever turns you on, man! -- incompatible with sober thought: which was fine with an era that had had it, frankly, with sober thought.
Drugs are very much a part of our time and culture, which is why the war on drugs looks more and more like a losing proposition. The point compellingly advanced by Becker and Murphy may win out over the next decade. If so, the drug gangs may disappear, the prisons disgorge tens of thousands. Will things in general be as good as they might have been had the culture walked a different path 40 years ago -- the path of civilized "inhibition"? Ah. We get down here to brass tacks.
You left out the fact that it has created a money tree for the legal racket. Attorneys on both sides, courts, judges, staffs, forensics techs, jailors, bailiffs, bail bondsmen etc. etc. etc.
I must be suffering from PDS--pundit derangement syndrome.
In a brave new world, soma is needed for control...
(1) How will previously illegal drugs be made available? Certainly not over the counter - you will not be able to just walk in and buy powerful street drugs legally at your local pharmacy or supermarket.
They will be available only by prescription.
(2) In order to get the prescription, a cottage industry of disreputable medical professionals and social workers will fill the gap. And they will not remain nonviolent
(3) Whether he gets his fix from a shady prescription mill and its enforcers rather than from a shady street dealer and his enforcers is immaterial to the employability of junkies.
They are unemployable and they will either be subsidized by taxpayers directly, or they will subsidize themselves through violent crime or, more likely, through both.
(4) Junkies by their nature, need to take doses that are lethal for nonusers and near-lethal for users. The government will not allow such dangerous doses to be dispensed. Therefore, obtaining the desired dose will be illegal in all conceivable circumstances anyway.
(5) Legalization will certainly encourage people who would not otherwise experiment to experiment.
Decriminalization will alleviate nothing and potentially create new problems.
Handing the government the power to prohibit the use of certain substances leads to the loss of limited government. It’s not the other way around. And once you’ve ceded the principle, stop whining when people try to add to the list.
I’m always amazed when conservative rail about government control of soft drinks, fast food, and tobacco but stand arm and arm with the Drug Warriors.
“Have we lost the drug wars?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you’re not willing to fight - then you’re sure to lose.
They were lost the nanosecond they started.
I don’t do drugs. I quit drinking years ago. I will never advocate their use. But human nature is what it is. No one will ever stop a person that wants to do drugs as long as they exist. And it is not possible to make every mind altering substance vanish.
All you can do is make people accountable for their actions. Such are the burden of a free society.
You imply they would have been successfully prosecuted for something else, but present evidence for just the opposite. Why would they settle for drug charges if they could prove actual crimes (vices are not crimes)? Efficiency’s sake, yes, but of course efficiency is an empty goal if the end result isn’t just. What the drug war makes more efficient is putting more people behind bars with less effort, which was the article’s point in the first place. You have demonstrated it well.
Possession is a sort of catch-all that’s easy to prove, especially with a nonexistent 4th amendment, and easy to offer as reprieve for larger charges hanging over their heads. Without it cops, prosecuters, judges, etc. would have to do their real jobs and convict on real crimes.
About the nonviolent thing, assume the are all rapist murderers. Nevertheless they are behind bars for nonviolent “crimes.” You come at it from the perspective of there are a lot of bad people out there, they need to be locked up, and it’s a good thing to get them anyway we can. That is how most Law and Order types think, I’d bet. It is thoroughly unjust. We should be locking people up for acts which are malum in se, not other acts that aren’t as proxies.
Oh, and were drugs legal at least people wouldn’t be killing eachother over tlcontrol of the drug trade, which would wipe out whatever benefit we get from jailing violent criminals on nonviolent charges right there.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't.
It's too bad someone hasn't come up with the idea of dividing a country into separate sub-jurisdictions so we could test different approaches to things like drug use, and the jurisdictions with the best approaches would gradually see those adopted across the board. Rather than dictating policy for the entire country without any sense of whether or not it is working.
Hey, I’m actually in favor of legalization — I just want all the social programs ended first. I don’t care if people die in the streets because they make bad choices. But I do not want to say: “your bad choices are fine with me — take my money: I will support your bad choices.”
End social programs
End the war on drugs
I want both things, and I think the order matters a great deal.
+1
It was amazing how quickly drugs appeared on the scene. As the author notes, it seems within a year or two went from nowhere, to everywhere. I saw many lives ruined as a result, and still today, the same old tired “no worse than alcohol” etc. nonchalance about dope. Now we can see where all this “tolerance” “free love” “civil rights” “turn on, tune out” crapola has gotten us. That wonderfully great culture has been corrupted by the left: abortion, divorce, atheism, unpatriotism, drugs, illegitimacy, STDs, quotas, lapdog media . . .what a difference 40+ years made. No wonder we are a nation divided with the brainwashed 47%+
(1) How will previously illegal drugs be made available? Certainly not over the counter - you will not be able to just walk in and buy powerful street drugs legally at your local pharmacy or supermarket.
They will be available only by prescription.
Says who? Any adult can buy the powerful drug alcohol.
(2) In order to get the prescription, a cottage industry of disreputable medical professionals and social workers will fill the gap. And they will not remain nonviolent
See above.
(3) Whether he gets his fix from a shady prescription mill and its enforcers rather than from a shady street dealer and his enforcers is immaterial to the employability of junkies.
They are unemployable and they will either be subsidized by taxpayers directly, or they will subsidize themselves through violent crime or, more likely, through both.
Or as alkies do: odd jobs, panhandling, can collecting, etc.
(4) Junkies by their nature, need to take doses that are lethal for nonusers and near-lethal for users. The government will not allow such dangerous doses to be dispensed. Therefore, obtaining the desired dose will be illegal in all conceivable circumstances anyway.
Any adult can easily buy several times the lethal dose of the drug alcohol.
(5) Legalization will certainly encourage people who would not otherwise experiment to experiment.
So let 'em - contrary to Reefer Madness mythology, a single experience with a drug is rarely if ever damaging or addicting.
Actually, that is an idea in progress. 4 years ago even the leftist libtards in California realized legal marijuana was a bad idea and so that proposition was defeated. Now that Colorado and Washington have allowed it - we will witness the free-fall of civil society in those states as crime and welfare rates increase.
Yeah, you just can't turn on a TV without hearing about the lastest shootout between shady docs having a dispute over their OxyContin turf.
Oh. Wait. Actually, I don't recall hearing any stories like that at all....
So let it be written. So let it be dumb.
How do you justify a police state?
Marijuana is less addictive than alcohol, and unlike alcohol can't kill you in a single evening of overuse.
This comment could only be made by someone who thinks "a shot of bourbon" isn't a drug. There was a lot more drinking of alcohol in the 1950s than today, and a much greater societal tolerance for drinking and driving ("one for the road"). The difference between the '50s and '60s wasn't the difference between sobriety and intoxication, but in the choice of intoxicants.
I was recently reading William Graham Sumner’s “What the Social Classes Owe to Eachother,” which is from the 1880s, when the state was vastly less involved in our lives but the exact same arguments for its expansion we hear today were gaining momentum. He goes on about how throwing winos in the drunk tank supports them in their drunkenness. Which seems counterintuitive, but is plain as day when you think about it for a moment.
Personal responsibility takes care of itself, unlike the Welfare State. In the very least we know problems like drunkenness or drug addiction take care of themselves if people do not. You won’t be a drunk forever on your own, unless you happen to be a famous writer or somesuch. Why do we interfere with this process? Out of sympathy for the drunk? But that’s their problem. Because we fear worse should drunkenness be unbound? For instance I’m always hearing about how heroin addicts will be robbing me to make a living in the event heroin is legalized. But they already do that, first of all. And there’s be a lot less heroin addicts if we stopped taking care of them, because heroin is a deadly addiction.
Some people just can’t see how criminalizing a thing can give you more of it. But what gives you more of it still is coddling the abusers. That is, the Welfare State gives you more people who need welfare. Worst of all possible outcomes may be legalizing drugs and coddling users in the warm embrace of the state. From a practical perspective, not according to the dictates of justice, that is. Putting them behind bars is better than leaving them free and paying all their bills if you want not to support their habits, I’ll admit.
That one's going on my check-back-in-a-year-to-rub-their-nose-in-how-wrong-they-were list.
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.