A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
A few days ago, the Cato Institute posted this exceptional audio recording of John McWhorter (Dec 3, 2010) as its daily podcast. In it, McWhorter makes a compelling case against the so-called "war on drugs" by appealing to its detrimental effects on black Americans. He argues that the criminalization of the production and exchange of drugs causes the allocation of law enforcement resources towards the pursuit and apprehension of perpetrators who are disproportionately young black men. This, according to McWhorter, is the primary reason why the police encounter black men on such a routine basis and why the relationship between the police and black men is as acrimonious as it is.
McWhorter's main contention however is that the mal-effects of drug prohibition give the "racism forever Cassandras" the opportunity to lamentably and publicly misconstrue such mal-effects as the result instead of racial bigotry. Then the emphasis once again falls erroneously upon white Americans, as, according to the narrative of racial opportunists such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, white Americans are the perpetrators of such bigotry. This is not progress, says McWhorter. Ending the war on drugs would, as he says, "pull the rug out from under all of this"; it would leave race baiters and "victimologists" bereft of further excuses with which to argue against calls for black introspective reform.
I could reinforce McWhorter's argument with additional arguments, but nevertheless, McWhorter offers a convincing case against drug prohibition that conservatives can certainly embrace.
Well???
- Comment (120)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
May '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
There are, I believe, significantly less arbitrary methods for recognizing adulthood status. It was once the case in Poland that youngsters could demonstrate their maturity to the public by passing some kind of maturity test. Economist Murray Rothbard argued that if a child demonstrated that he or she could support him or herself financially, that such an ability illustrated the requisite cognitive abilities to give consent.
Jun '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Michael Labeit
Passing a law against the consumption of a good by appealing to the likelihood that the consumer may leave his private property, enter public property, and threaten the rights of others is contingent upon multiple probabilities. Again, I don't see why a drug prohibitionist would confine himself to things like marijuana and heroin. There is such a probability of violence with many substances. Why not include alcohol among the list of prohibited substances? · Dec 11 at 7:57pm
Because statistically given the ubiquity of alcohol and its vast everyday use the numbers of violent incidents is relatively negligible. Let's suppose for example that crystal meth was used at the same ingestion level as alcohol products across America. What would be the result?
Sep '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Brian Watt: Now, let's move onto designer drugs like meth.
This is a situation where the cure is likely to be worse than the socio-economic "disease" - much worse. · Dec 11 at 7:41pm
Meth is methamphetamine, very similar to other amphetamines, all of which could be found as samples for doctors in pharmeutical sales reps' garages in the 70's in bulk. I would wager it is more likely more widely abused now since it is underground in the form of meth. Back in the 60's, using the amphetamines did not have the social stigma that meth users have now. I have heard anecdotal tales of otherwise very "straight as an arrow" guys using "black beauties" (biphetamine) and "dexies" (dextroamphetamine) to stay up all night studying--these drugs were not as tightly controlled as they are now, and, as I say, even otherwise "straight" guys used them on occasion without social shunning.
Which situation is more dangerous? The sixties or now? Which situation lets folks have more freedom? [Certainly not condoning the use of amphetamines, but, if you ask a prohibitor is he/she would start using (now illegal) drugs once legal, the answer is invariably, "no."]
Edited on December 12, 2010 at 5:08amMay '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
What would be the necessary conditions for prescription? We can rule out minors and the mentally challenged.
Sep '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Another thought: Just as a pile of crack on a table is harmless unless (ab)used, a gun sitting on a table is harmless unless (ab)used. I think this is a good thought experiment commonly put forth by libertarians. It gets at whether ending prohibition would, in the end, change how many would try the newly legalized drugs.
Aug '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Michael Labeit
There are, I believe, significantly less arbitrary methods for recognizing adulthood status. It was once the case in Poland that youngsters could demonstrate their maturity to the public by passing some kind of maturity test. Economist Murray Rothbard argued that if a child demonstrated that he or she could support him or herself financially, that such an ability illustrated the requisite cognitive abilities to give consent.
But what if the cost of testing each child to see if she is "ready for consent" is prohibitively high?
Would Poland's test be immune from criticism today?
Could we reasonably expect sex with someone who is not self-supporting (or not yet "capable" of self-support) to be counted as statutory rape? (On the other hand... it's a powerful incentive to become self-supporting.)
If we had a psychosocial/economic test for adulthood, how would it not be endlessly disputed in court?
Perhaps an "arbitrary" age of consent really is better. Rational ignorance...
Edited on December 12, 2010 at 5:16amJun '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Dan Holmes
Brian Watt: Now, let's move onto designer drugs like meth.
This is a situation where the cure is likely to be worse than the socio-economic "disease" - much worse. · Dec 11 at 7:41pm
Which situation is more dangerous? The sixties or now? Which situation lets folks have more freedom? [Certainly not condoning the use of amphetamines, but, if you ask a prohibitor is he/she would start using (now illegal) drugs once legal, the answer is invariably, "no."] · Dec 11 at 8:07pm
Edited on Dec 11 at 08:08 pm
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Crystal meth is a more potent and purified form of methamphetamine.
This is nasty stuff, enjoy: http://www.drugfree.org/drug-guide/crystal-meth
And for all the white collar users who dabbled with "uppers" in the 60s and 70's, I'm sure there are several drooling and muttering schizophrenics sleeping on sidewalks around the country who became addicted and also sought ought stronger, longer-lasting stimulants. Would prefer to keep their numbers down.
May '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
I'm fairly certain that even if crystal meth use was subsidized it would still not even approach the popularity of alcohol consumption for the basic fact that most people are rational enough to avoid it. I'm confident that we can trust people to use freedom responsibly. Furthermore, what standard requires one to conclude that alcohol-related violence is negligible? Moreover, I don't think the ubiquity of alcohol consumption, taken by itself or supplemented with additional considerations, strengthens the case against alcohol prohibition. No doubt, the hypothetical ubiquity of murder would fail to demonstrate the alleged superfluousness or futility of laws against murder.
May '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: But what if the cost of testing each child to see if she is "ready for consent" is prohibitively high?
Would Poland's test be immune from criticism today?
Could we reasonably expect sex with someone who is not self-supporting (or not yet "capable" of self-support) to be counted as statutory rape? (On the other hand... it's a powerful incentive to become self-supporting.)
If we had a psychosocial/economic test for adulthood, how would it not be endlessly disputed in court?
Perhaps an "arbitrary" age of consent really is better. Rational ignorance... · Dec 11 at 8:15pm
Edited on Dec 11 at 08:16 pm
I rather like Rothbard's approach over Poland's. The costs are lower and its more definitive.
Jun '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Michael Labeit
What would be the necessary conditions for prescription? We can rule out minors and the mentally challenged. · Dec 11 at 8:10pm
Why speak in vague hypotheticals? Why not name the drug and let's see if it can somehow be "contained" and not abused or lead to massive societal problems if legalized? I mean it's not as though the pharmacological and criminal justice literature doesn't exist on any drug you wish to discuss.
Do you think minors can't get access to their parents' medicine cabinets? Are you serious? These hypotheticals really are becoming laughable.
May '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Don't get me started with guns. Personally, the case against gun control is rock solid.
Sep '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Brian Watt
Dan Holmes
Brian Watt: Now, let's move onto designer drugs like meth.
This is a situation where the cure is likely to be worse than the socio-economic "disease" - much worse. · Dec 11 at 7:41pm
Which situation is more dangerous? The sixties or now? Which situation lets folks have more freedom? [Certainly not condoning the use of amphetamines, but, if you ask a prohibitor is he/she would start using (now illegal) drugs once legal, the answer is invariably, "no."] · Dec 11 at 8:07pm
Edited on Dec 11 at 08:08 pm
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Crystal meth is a more potent and purified form of methamphetamine.
And for all the white collar users who dabbled with "uppers" in the 60s and 70's, I'm sure there are several ... schizophrenics sleeping on sidewalks around the country who became addicted and also sought ought stronger, longer-lasting stimulants. Would prefer to keep their numbers down. · Dec 11 at 8:22pm
Meth is a very similar drug to dexies and bennies. One difference is taking orally vs. smoking, smoking being more addictive.
Aug '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Michael Labeit
What would be the necessary conditions for prescription? We can rule out minors and the mentally challenged.
I guess I'd envision the function of the prescribing doctor to be somewhat like that of an old-fashioned bartender. He keeps an eye on his patient, and stops writing the prescriptions if he thinks his patient is deteriorating (risking psychosis, etc) as a result of the drugs. If the doctor believes the drugs are "too harmful", he stops prescribing.
Of course, under a system like this, there is some inevitable corruption -- doctors who become "scrip monkeys", just signing for whatever their "patients" ask for, and patients re-selling their "prescriptions" to others for recreational use.
But it's the system we largely had in place before the "War on Drugs", and as Dan Holmes pointed out in post 83, it doesn't seem so bad in retrospect.
The hypocrisy of having doctors prescribe as "therapeutic" drugs which will likely be used for pleasure is perhaps one we could live with, if the alternatives are worse.
Hidden law.
Jun '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Dan Holmes
Meth is a very similar drug to dexies and bennies. One difference is taking orally vs. smoking, smoking being more addictive. · Dec 11 at 8:32pm
Smoking it delivers the chemical to the brain that much quicker, yes. And your point is?
May '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Brian Watt: Why speak in vague hypotheticals? Why not name the drug and let's see if it can somehow be "contained" and not abused or lead to massive societal problems if legalized? I mean it's not as though the pharmacological and criminal justice literature doesn't exist on any drug you wish to discuss.
Do you think minors can't get access to their parents' medicine cabinets? Are you serious? These hypotheticals really are becoming laughable.
My hypotheticals offer a model for coping with drugs where usage correlates strongly with violence. Their value lies in the fact that if a particular drug is described accurately by the antecedent claims of the hypothetical, then we can conclude with the consequent claims. Otherwise, I await for the consumption of the truly hard drugs to be legalized, which is the ultimate experiment. The Cato Institute (I concede that it is a "libertarian" think tank) has reported that the decriminalization process in Portugal has produced positive results.
Jun '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Michael Labeit
Brian Watt:
My hypotheticals offer a model for coping with drugs where usage correlates strongly with violence. Their value lies in the fact that if a particular drug is described accurately by the antecedent claims of the hypothetical, then we can conclude with the consequent claims. Otherwise, I await for the consumption of the truly hard drugs to be legalized, which is the ultimate experiment. The Cato Institute (I concede that it is a "libertarian" think tank) has reported that the decriminalization process in Portugal has produced positive results. · Dec 11 at 8:39pm
No, that is incomplete logic because "prescription" of a drug doesn't guarantee that it won't be abused, stolen, repurposed and reconstituted into another form. You are only solving for just a small part of the equation and without adequate controls after prescription all bets are off.
Sep '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Brian Watt
Dan Holmes
Brian Watt:
And for all the white collar users who dabbled with "uppers" in the 60s and 70's, I'm sure there are several drooling and muttering schizophrenics sleeping on sidewalks around the country who became addicted and also sought ought stronger, longer-lasting stimulants. Would prefer to keep their numbers down. · Dec 11 at 8:22pm
The anecdotes I referenced were from a Mormon farmer, who, in his adult life, even hated to use caffeine and never drank alcohol, and a pediatrician who now rarely drinks alcohol except on special occasions.
We can talk about our own personal anecdotes all day, but I do think that Meth is sold (and used) today in this very dangerous smokable form because it is illegal--in this form, it is easier to become addicted to (good for the pusher) and it's easier to transport a more potent and expensive quantity of it.
Finally, who's to say that these schizoids would not or could not have ended in the same gutter using meth? I think it's more likely to happen this way today than in the 60's.
Jun '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Michael Labeit
Brian Watt:
My hypotheticals offer a model for coping with drugs where usage correlates strongly with violence. Their value lies in the fact that if a particular drug is described accurately by the antecedent claims of the hypothetical, then we can conclude with the consequent claims. Otherwise, I await for the consumption of the truly hard drugs to be legalized, which is the ultimate experiment. The Cato Institute (I concede that it is a "libertarian" think tank) has reported that the decriminalization process in Portugal has produced positive results. · Dec 11 at 8:39pm
In the Portugal example drugs were decriminalized not legalized and therefore not readily available for the populace at large. Ending a "prohibition" sounds like legalization to me which was I thought the backbone of the thesis put forward.
May '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Brian Watt
Michael Labeit
Brian Watt:
My hypotheticals offer a model for coping with drugs where usage correlates strongly with violence. Their value lies in the fact that if a particular drug is described accurately by the antecedent claims of the hypothetical, then we can conclude with the consequent claims. Otherwise, I await for the consumption of the truly hard drugs to be legalized, which is the ultimate experiment. The Cato Institute (I concede that it is a "libertarian" think tank) has reported that the decriminalization process in Portugal has produced positive results.
In the Portugal example drugs were decriminalized not legalized and therefore not readily available for the populace at large. Ending a "prohibition" sounds like legalization to me which was I thought the backbone of the thesis put forward.
I did refer to it as "decriminalization." But I doubt that decriminalization will produce better results than criminalization, only to collapse into anarchy with full legalization. If the argument of the drug prohibitionists is correct, decriminalization should yield worse socio-economic problems than criminalization and full legalization should produce even more pronounced socio-economic effects. Empirically, this seems not to be the case.
Jun '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Dan Holmes
Brian Watt
Dan Holmes
Brian Watt:
We can talk about our own personal anecdotes all day, but I do think that Meth is sold (and used) today in this very dangerous smokable form because it is illegal--in this form, it is easier to become addicted to (good for the pusher) and it's easier to transport a more potent and expensive quantity of it. · Dec 11 at 8:53pm
Sorry, Dan but this is a specious argument. Crystal meth is not sold "because it is illegal"; it is sold because it is profitable to the seller and derives almost guaranteed continued revenue because it is incredibly and sometimes instantly addictive and so the buyers crave more. Even if the initial purchase was something done on a dare or as the result of some brief titillating thought about doing something "naughty" subsequent purchases are driven by an addictive craving. And unlike cigarettes or alcohol the effects of the drug in this form, regardless of the sometimes violent behaviors, are more physically and neurologically destructive on a much, much quicker time scale.