War on Humanity

Help me out. The issue of drugs, the war on drugs, drug abuse, all of it, this is the part of libertarianism that I'm having difficulty with. I understand the intellectual underpinnings but I'm a parent of a 15 year old, my younger brother abused drugs as a youth and as an adult, and I see drug abuse (meth) as a major cause of crime in my region.

How do I reconcile the desire to do away the abuse of drugs with the idea adults should be free to do as they please as long as it doesn't hurt others? I understand this is a simple minded question but it is one I have yet to get my mind around.

This is a sincere request and I appreciate any input.

"How do I reconcile the desire to do away the abuse of drugs with the idea adults should be free to do as they please as long as it doesn't hurt others?"

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. No one is saying that if you believe in an adults right to do what they please as long as it doesn't hurt others you have to believe drugs are good or, at least, not harmful. It's like freedom of speech, you may not agree with what someone is saying but you defend their right to say it.

For example, I'm a non smoker and truly think it's a disgusting habit, but I don't believe bans should be implemented in private establishments like bars.

...but I don't believe bans should be implemented in private establishments like bars.

To clarify, I mean that governments should not be banning smoking. If an owner of a bar wishes to ban smoking that should be his/her right, and his/hers alone.

Steve -- If you have Adobe reader, you can read one summary of the libertarian arguments against the War on Drugs here, in a section of the Cato Handbook:

www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-60.pdf

Raich is pretty bad, but you haven't felt true outrage until you've read this:

http://reason.com/blog/show/119085.html

25 years in jail for using opiates to treat back pain (caused by a butchered back surgery). Moreover, these opiates were most likely prescribed by his DOCTOR. And the Florida Supreme Court just declined to hear the case.

Steve -

The artificial shortages caused by prohibition raise prices to such levels that users, in many cases, need to resort to crime in order to acquire the goods. The high prices are further complicated by the fact that the prohibition effectively limits the size of "firms" engaging in the business - cutting off economies of scale. Furthermore, because there is no legal venue in which to settle disputes (when was the last time Coke went to war with Pepsi?), violence is the only means by which drug dealers can settle their disputes.

Drug trafficking is really only open now to bad people - because good people are concerned with the legal ramifications of their actions. Prohibition has also spurred the development of harder drugs, like the meth or whatever else is out there. Since sentencing is often tied to a weight or volume of drug, and not its potency, the trend has been to develop ever more potent strains, in order to minimize both the chances of being caught, and the sentences imposed thereafter.

Most (or all) of the biggest problems can be directly traced back to the high prices, which are caused by legislated shortages.

I'm also the parent of a 15 year old, and I'm still worried (just a little, because he seems to have a good head about him) about his easy access to drugs, despite prohibition.

What I'm saying is that, as well as agreeing with the prior comments on the extremely negative side effects of prohibition, including crime and sentencing patients to a painful death, we aren't even seeing the intended central effects of prohibition. The war on drugs is over. The government has lost but, like all "wars," not before taking so many of our rights along the way.

I would hope that no DA would prosecute but that if one did, the jury would vote to nullify. Unfortunately, we cannot count on this. Reason does not always triumph.

The smoke & drink lobby is not about to let you grow your entertainment for free in your backyard, no matter how many

heart breaking cancer treatment stories come up. Therefore,


get used to your 15 year old having to steal from your purse


or neighbors, in addition to having to pick up a habit to numb


the pain that comes from having a rigid parent like yourself


that believes prohibition prevents dependancy.

The best way I know how to explain this to people is by my own experience.

In high school I could buy a "three finger" bag of weed for $25 with alarming ease. But finding alcohol was relatively difficult.

Why? Because of the illegality of the weed, there was a huge profit to be made. Not so for the alcohol. Yes, a bag of dope was easier to transport, but if the profit were there on the alcohol, there would have been a run on flasks and containers of that sort.

So, since there was no extreme profit in the overall market to give impetus to the would be dealer, there was no easy alcohol to be found.

And yes, we did get alcohol, and lots of it, but it was relatively much more difficult to obtain.

Which takes us to the gateway drug argument. Weed is a gateway drug exactly because it is illegal. If it were regulated like alcohol, the marijuana buyer would not be hanging out with the people that they are now required to get around.

The only good argument I can think of against legalizing drugs is the lack of a quick and easy "breathalyzer" type test for driving while under the influence. Granted, people tend to drive slower while stoned, but they are nonetheless impaired. And as far as I know, there are no quick and efficient tests for officers to detect a stoned or high driver.

Also, the Libertarian Party as an official organ is bound to always pull in less than 5% as long as they make this a banner issue. I'm with them, but this is just a real loser for winning over hearts and minds.

Because of the high price of drugs, addicts also tend to neglect nutrition and hygiene. They spend all their money on the drugs.

Steve, The three most important things (IMO) to instill in your child while he's still under your care concerning drugs and alcohol are (1) if it's illegal, don't get caught, (2) don't drive or do dangerous things when you're not completely sober, and (3) if he's got a problem (alcohol, drugs, unexpectedly fathered a child, heck, even weight) you're there to help him through it. All of these apply regardless of how tight or loose drug laws become.

In my younger years, I bought into Bill Bennet's line that the law (he meant legislation) is a good teacher. I expect that's what your hoping it will do for your son. What most people eventually realize intuitively is the difference between law and legislation discussed in a recent EconTalk episode. If meth is such a problem in your locality despite all the efforts that have gone into eradicating it, do you think that people might be taking away a lesson that the legislation is mostly meaningless?

Brad,

I think you misunderstand the point Don's point regarding law and legislation as emergent phenomenon. You seem to be stating that because the law is being broken, the law is not good. By that standard, no law would be good. I think the more correct question is "Is the law being enforced?" and "Is the law widely understood to be appropriate, enforced, and enforceable?"


Steve

Thank you all for your comments. I will continue to research the issue and attempt to understand it better. While I'm at it I should thank our hosts for such a great place to exchange ideas.

Steve,

The War on Drugs doesn't prevent people from using and abusing drugs. This may sound obvious but most people seem to forget this fact. If you want to use drugs, you will find a way to use them, its just that simple.

Considering that overall drug usage rate has been flat for the past thirty years or so, the War on Drugs has been a BAD deal--no change in drug use, but all of the negative externalities that come along with the War on Drugs.

My problem isn't with drugs. They are obviously bad. Anyone who says otherwise isn't being honest.

My problem is with how we are dealing with the problem of drugs.

By restricting the supply of drugs (by making them illegal), we are driving up the price which...

1. Increases the value of drug dealing territory, thus encouraging gang warfare (and enriching the drug lords).

2. Increases petty crime by forcing addicts to steal more expensive goods in order to get their next fix.

You saw the same thing in the era of prohibition. The consumption kept happening but crime skyrocketed since supplies were restricted and thus significant profits could be made in booze smuggling.

I would prefer that we dealt with the problem of drugs in the same way that we deal with the problem of alcoholism; as an individual problem.

By doing this, you reduce the cost to society as a whole.

2nd Steve... I think I have a correct understanding of law v. legislation. I think your operative questions are the correct ones. And in the case of drugs and the war on drugs, if you're using them and otherwise staying out of the way and out of trouble, you're not terribly likely to get arrested and charged with a crime. Call it one of those lessons most people learn when they go off to college. BTW, if we conducted the War on Terrorism this way, airplane tickets would be behind the pharmacist's counter, but you could board a plane with an amount of C4 small enough for personal use. And there would be a booming business in rehabilitation for successful suicide bombers.

Steve, the thing to remember is that the war on drugs doesn't protect us from drugs. They're still out there and rather common really.

And even if it did - would it be worth it? Look at meth. Certainly it's a harmful drug in and of itself but the most devastating stories are the ones of people who have suffered severe injuries when manufacturing meth in their kitchen - a hobby that would certainly lose its appeal if drugs were legal.

Once drugs are legal, they won't be legal for minors.

Trial lawyers will go after sellers the way they go after the tobacco companies.

DQ,

It's asinine, overly simplistic, caustic and idiotic comments like yours that help keep libertarianism nothing more than a fringe cult. You're an amazing ass if you believe the crap you write. Grow up and get a grip.

I don't see the need to make the drugs themselves illegal because there are already laws to prohibit harming others. That is, you don't go to jail for possession or use of drugs, you go to jail for theft, or DUI, or creating a public disturbance, etc.

As a former user myself, I think the approach to stopping drug use is misdirected. Forget going after suppliers and distributers. Set up subsidized testing facilities and allow employers to discriminate on the basis of test results. Make all forms of government assistance (including unemployment insurance and tuition assistance) dependant on the results of random drugs tests. Take away drivers licenses for DUI - even on first offense (you can have it back in a year if you test clean). The user is creating the costs to society and the user should pay them.

Steve,

All you have to do is look at your own words. The War on Drugs did not prevent the bad things that happened to your brother, nor is it preventing the problems you describe where you live. Even if your desire to do away with the abuse of drugs is something that can be achieved (I personally doubt it; addiction has always been with us), the way we're going about it now is a colossal failure, and it blinds us to better alternatives.

For all you parents of 15 year-olds, if you haven't convinced your children not to do drugs by the time they're 15, then its too late. You are not going to influence that decision making process at that age. You needed to be working on that when your kids were 10 and younger.

If your 15 year-old is thinking about doing drugs, then the war on drugs is no longer protecting him, its targeting him. Now decide how you would like this "war" to be fought.

When a 15 year does drugs, the CEO of legal drugs company will be sued just as Philip Morris' was. When drugs are legal and cheap, how many more users will there be? Will the savings from prisons and cops go to support a big increase in welfare?

Dagny --

I think you should carry your analogy a little farther. It is illegal to sell Alcohol and Cigarettes to minors. But, it's downright easy for minors to buy such things at a convenience store have an older brother or sister buy them. I suggest that if you're a teenager who has tried a drug once, you are much more likely to get your second hit if your brother can easily buy it for you than if you had to find a street dealer.

If drugs are legalized, one of three things will happen. The total price, including things such as acquisition costs and risk of getting tainted drugs will (a) drop, (b) stay constant, or (c) rise.

If (a), usage will go up unless demand for drugs is highly inelastic over time. I know of very few products where this is true and doubt that drugs would be one of them. If (c), the illegal drug trade will still happen in competition with the regular market. (b) is the only option of getting it remotely right.

But, there are other problems -- will legalization change the perceived cost? Aren't there people who view the fact that something is illegal as a factor in not doing it? Won't some of those people start to use drugs when they wouldn't have before?

Considering that pharmaceutical companies can be sued for drugs which are inadvertently addictive, who is going to start selling a product which is deliberately so?

Steve,

I don't believe anybody has even mentioned the fact that prohibition leads to murder, and lots of it. Drug gangs maintain monopolies over "turf" via violence against rival gangs. The do this so that prices are not competed down to marginal cost and profits remain high. Since they are commiting felonies that call for serious jail time just by selling the drugs, the marginal cost of murder is low. Low marginal cost of murder, high marginal benefit of murder; this is the result of drug prohibition.

It's illegal to sell alcohol and cigarettes to minors but it still happens, true. . . but no one is proposing to completely rid the world of drugs, not even the staunchest of drug warriors.

The bottom line, supported by real life evidence is that, for the minor, the illegal drugs such as pot and LSD are easier to obtain than the otherwise legal alcohol.

Think of it another way, the name Al Capone would not be so easily recognized, even today decades after his reign, had it not been for the boon prohibition gave to his business concerns.

And the parent is responsible if their 15 year old is doing drugs. That parent has failed somewhere in the rearing of that child. Failed.

And yes, I am a parent, and I also did drugs at the age of 15. My parents are good folks, but they were naive and woefully ignorant of my daily life during those times. They put enough good stuff in me that it all worked out in the long run, but the whole drug scene could have, and should have been avoided.

Chris,

You write:

"Aren't there people who view the fact that something is illegal as a factor in not doing it? Won't some of those people start to use drugs when they wouldn't have before?"

It might be anecdotal, but as a recent college graduate, one thing I noticed was the number of students under 21 drinking alcohol vs. the number over 21, as well as the amount consumed. I knew a number of people who would drink to excess because it was "cool" to drink illegally. Once the person turned 21, the "cool" factor disappeared and so did the excessive drinking.

While it is true some people may start using drugs if they become legal, there would probably be a large group that stops, or never starts, simply because it would no longer be an act of defiance.

My point was it would be worth it even if we had more meth addicts it would be worth it if we had fewer meth lab explosions which are much more harmful than meth itself. There would still be illegal trade but it would be more along the lines of someone over the legal age buying and reselling.

The same thing could be said of other drugs, too, in various ways, but I can't think of any that make the point more obviously than people being burned, scarred and blinded.

I'm a pro-legalization person, but the whole lets make it legal because of the epidemic of exploding meth labs is silly. For our side's sake, pick a better argument.

One successful meth lab affects hundreds, if not thousands of mostly young people in a harmful way. The exploding meth lab is relatively rare when compared to how many young people are doing meth on a daily basis.

And even then, the facilitators get what they get. People that run meth labs now, will be doing something else illegal if the meth option is taken away from them. I've been around that crowd, they're not nice, they are criminals outside of their drug making activities, and basing a legalization argument on saving them is akin to warning against prohibition lest Al Capone become injured. As if Mr. Capone would be running a nice legal barber shop if his gin empire were made inoperative.

Or maybe poor Al Capone was driven to his illegal activities by "the man", and prohibition made him a criminal where otherwise he wouldn't have been. Likewise, anyone dealing with a meth lab is not the focus of anyone's genuine concern. They'll just turn all of their attention to stealing cars, and generally menacing their neighborhoods.

Call me hard hearted but I am not the least bit outraged at this woman's problems with getting marijuana for her illness. That's because I don't believe for one second that she needs it to stay alive. Or that it has any medicinal value for her at all. What I do believe is that she and her ilk are a bunch of lying creeps who simply want to toke up.

There are other things that I know as opposed to merely believe. I know that the damage drug addicts do to themselves, their families, and their communities is so enormously awful that no sane society can continue to tolerate it.

I also know that the "War on Drugs" is having some success in that drug use is down everywhere except on college campuses. Perhaps there are too many libertarians running those campuses.

Flash,

How could you possibly know someone else's pain? That is so incredibly presumptuous that it defies belief. Would you ban prescription narcotics because people who use them are just junkies who want to get high?


As for your other argument about the damage that addicts do, so what? I have alcoholics in my family, and whatever they've done, it doesn't justify taking away other people's freedom by banning alcohol. The war on drugs has not stopped people from becoming addicts- it has only victimized the innocent. If you want to ban everything anyone could possibly do that "damages their families", you will end up with a truly totalitarian society.

People are willing to consider a police state as a viable solution to societal problems when they don't actually live under one.

Capone may have been a sociopath, but alcohol prohibition made it possible for him to be a powerful and rich sociopath.

I don't know if you are hard harted Flash, but I would suggest that you are operating on some erroneous premise. Only an _____ would suggest that the multi-billion dollar war on drugs has been effective or efficacious.

The problem with prohibition is that it makes addicts desperate, criminals wealthy, the streets more dangerous, and law enforcement corrupt (either venally or systemically).

I don't believe that Raich needs marijuana to survive, but a singular case doesn't disprove the facts.

The war on drugs has failed, period. I could buy as much pot as I wanted, easily, as early as 12 years old (1982) and not only is still easy to buy today, but from what I hear from a pot smoking co-worker, the price has stayed relatively low.

The supposed war has failed.

Attempting to legalize pot along the lines of medical purposes I believe does the overall issue a disservice. It's a recreational drug that makes a person slow, dimwitted and lazy. But it's a far cry better than alcohol, and no one is calling for a new alcohl prohibition.

Point being that, in a debate online, at work, or wherever, whatever one's defense for keeping alcohol legal works just as well for pot, and the reasons against bringing back prohibition work just as well for legalizing pot.

But marijuana is NOT a medicine, and the entire legalization movement will only gain credibility when they drop the silly facade.

"But marijuana is NOT a medicine, and the entire legalization movement will only gain credibility when they drop the silly facade."

Then why does the government grow pot for certain medical reasons?

"But marijuana is NOT a medicine, and the entire legalization movement will only gain credibility when they drop the silly facade."

Much to the embarresment of the DEA, the research they have suppressed to maintain this fiction can be repeated outside of their jurisdiction.

More generally, there are ailments, and treatments, which produce nausea so severe oral anti-emetics cannot take effect. Ask any oncologist whether smoking marijuana can be useful in such a situation. Not all would prescribe it, even if they could, but they all know it works.

Sam

"Then why does the government grow pot for certain medical reasons?"

I don't know, why? The federal govt does all kinds of things I'm sure you don't agree with, so why use such a simple minded limtus test now?

Tri:

Smoking tobacco really does calm one's nerves, so it must be a medicine also.

> DQ,

>


> It's asinine, overly simplistic, caustic and idiotic comments like


> yours that help keep libertarianism nothing more than a fringe


> cult. You're an amazing ass if you believe the crap you write.


> Grow up and get a grip.

First, I'm not a libertarian.

Second, I watched my uncle die of multiple myloma over a 5 year period, and if it wasn't for weed he would've probably missed a lot more of his kids high school years before he died.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I've watched the country debate the finer points while directly watching people suffer.

Apparently you have not, yet.

And for those of you who deny it's usefulness, I suggest you offer to hold the bucket the next time a friend of yours suffers from cancer.

Marijuana is not classified as a medicine by the classification bureaucracy, hence it is not a medicine. Same for nicotine.

If the medicine classification bureacracy reclassified marijuana as a medicine, then it would be a medicine.

OTOH

Medicines are drugs that are used medically.

If marijuana, or nicotine, can be used medically, then in such usage, they are mdeicines.

It has long been accepted that opiates can be used medically, but they can also be used recreationally. The fact that they can be, and are used recreationally does not negate their medical uses. The same logic therefore must apply to cannabinoids.

If they can be used medically, as many doctors and researchers have testified, then they are medicines when used in that capacity.

The fact that emotions run high over the issue, leading many into a state of denial, does not alter the reality.

There are various ways to define drug categories. Some believe the political/bureacratic process is the only authentic way to define such things. Others accept the legitimacy of actual usage and the authority of expertise (rather than the expertise of authority).

This point comes up with off-label usage of many drugs.

1) The Mexican government just busted a meth lab where they seized US$206mn in US100 bills, i.e., approximately a literal ton of bills. Clearly there is money to be made in the drug business.

2) Nitroglycerine is a very dangerous explosive and a very useful medicine. One use does not preclude the other. Run standard double blind tests on medical marijuana and live with the results, win, loose, or draw, whichever outcome you define as winning or loosing. Let the concrete facts decide, not an abstract ideology.

I watched my brother die of stomach cancer. He didn't smoke and didn't want to try weed. I have always wondered if he might have lived a little longer, or even just suffered a little less, if he had and therefore could have eaten a little more.

Standard double blind tests would be difficult, as a placebo would be obvious. What would make sense would be to get a hybrid purported to be medicinal, and double blind it with something super stony like White Rhino. If patients with genuine symptoms to be alleviated prefer the healing variety, we would have some evidence.

I believe that all drugs should be legal. I say this because we as human beings should adopt “freedom” as a doctrine. There are some advantages and disadvantages to doing this of course. First the negatives, if drugs are legalized I believe that there would be a slight decline in the economy. I say this because humans tend to do more of something when it is prohibited and making drugs legal would cause humans to consume less. On the other hand one might think that making drugs legal would cause the economy to incline because the consumers would have nothing more to worry about and they would stop being conservative and purchase more.

The legalization of marijuana for example, is a very controversial subject. If marijuana was legalized it would have both a negative and a positive impact on the economy. The recreational use of marijuana could introduce new products thus leading to more spending which then leads the economy to go up. Products such as hemp, which is made from a male cannabis plant, can be used in many different industries. It can be used to make clothing, shoes, paper, and even jewelry. It is also more environmentally friendly to produce paper from hemp rather than using the traditional method of chopping down trees. Hemp can also be used as a cash crop for many farmers because if these products are introduced into the economy then someone will have to produce them thus resulting in a huge economic boom.

The United States is an advocate of freedom, so why not allow people to have the freedom to choose to use drugs.