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:
Sep '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Brian Watt
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? · Dec 11 at 8:35pm
The point is that smoking or injecting any mind-altering drug is more addictive than ingesting it, since with smoking or injecting the onset of action of the drug is quicker and the duration of action is shorter. Thus, chewing coca leaves is less addictive (and less harmful) than smoking crack cocaine. Ending prohibition, I believe, would favor more marketing of less harmful dosage forms. The analogy of selling and consuming beer, wine, or cocktails rather than Everclear is not a completely valid one (the taste of Everclear precludes its voluminous consumption, for example), but you get the idea.
And, with both legal and illegal drugs, the idea that one try and you are hooked for life, or the only way to use them is to the point of intoxication and not socially or for relaxation, does not jibe with reality, as alluded to by me and others already.
Sep '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Brian Watt
Dan Holmes
Brian Watt
Dan Holmes
Brian Watt:
I do think that Meth is sold (and used) today in this very dangerous smokable form because it is illegal--
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. · Dec 11 at 9:06pm
I did not say it is sold because it is illegal, I said it is sold in this very dangerous ...form because it is illegal.
Once again, an oral form, like what was widely available in previous times, is less dangerous and, depending on the dose, less harmful overall (again, caveat, I'm not condoning using meth in any form).
Jun '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Michael Labeit
Brian Watt
Michael Labeit
Brian Watt:
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. · Dec 11 at 9:06pm
It would seem so if you look at prohibition -> decriminalization -> and legalization as a gradual sequential process. I would contend that legalization - essentially the widespread availability of very dangerous narcotics is a quantum leap from the decriminalization applied to those who traffic in them. The negative effects on the populace when dangerous narcotics are readily available far exceeds the seemingly positive benefits of not incarcerating traffickers as much and saving on law enforcement and prison expenses. This is where statistics and ethics part ways because at the end of the day we are speaking of either allowing the destruction of human lives (and families) in the name of freedom or the discouragement of that for the greater good of society.
Sep '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
I once read that Ayn Rand would take a 5mg tablet (a low dose) of Dexedrine (brand of dextroamphetamine), wait an hour to see what happened, and then take another (apparently if she wasn't happy with the effect of the first dose). No wonder she was able to stay up all night with her Objectivist discussion groups saving the world...
Jun '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
To all...as much as I've enjoyed this, and I have. I must call it a night. I'll pick this up in the morning to see how my arguments have been dismantled. :-) Everyone take care. And by the way...just say "No".
Nov '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
If we need to legalize drugs so that police won’t encounter Black males so frequently and the relationship between Blacks and police won’t be so acrimonious, then we need to legalize larceny, aggravated assault and murder also. By gosh, they won’t be able to call us racists anymore then, will they?
May '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Besides that, Rand was a genius.
Dec '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. · Dec 11 at 8:03pm
I think you'd find that a significant number of persons regularly using currently-illegal drugs would fail the sorts of tests that you're discussing. A woman with children on public assistance who turns tricks to be able to afford crack or heroin would fail Rothbard's self-support test -- oughtn't her dealer be licensed to ensure that he doesn't sell to her as an honorary functional minor? (And do we consider her children victims of her victimless crime or not?)
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Often forgotten: the practical, retail-level of legalization. Either you let anyone sell drugs, or you regulate it, like liquor. Most people do not want Hank's House O' Blotto or Meth Warehouse in their neighborhoods. These stores will end up in poor neighborhoods, which means that the state will sanction drug-distribution stores in urban areas. And this will reduce the presumption of racism? It's the victimologist's dream come true.
May '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Awww, Hank's a good guy.
I do think that the victimologists will lose ground if prohibition is ended. There's goes one less amalgam of "racist" laws aimed at "keepin da black man down" as many say. Now, the drug problem already exists primarily in urban settings, so I don't believe any uproar over your scenario above would be justified. Moreover, the crime caused by artificially higher prices due to law enforcement related supply disruptions would disappear. Addicts would not have to engage in as much theft in order to resume consumption.
May '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
The Rothbard test applies to children, not to adults because at their age, adults possess the requisite cognitive abilities to make rational decisions. Whether they choose to be rational is another story.
Aug '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Michael Labeit
The Rothbard test applies to children, not to adults because at their age, adults possess the requisite cognitive abilities to make rational decisions. Whether they choose to be rational is another story.
I wish that were true...
For me, it's not that adults can always choose to be rational: I've witnessed too many painful situations that suggest otherwise.
It's that, irrational as an adult's decision for himself may be, the likelihood is that another deciding for him will do an even worse job.
Dec '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Michael Labeit
The Rothbard test applies to children, not to adults because at their age, adults possess the requisite cognitive abilities to make rational decisions. Whether they choose to be rational is another story. · Dec 12 at 11:42am
That is a dangerously naive assumption, Many adults who engage in long-term drug use lose the requisite cognitive abilities to make any rational decision that interferes with their drug use.
Look at your assertion that "Addicts would not have to engage in as much theft in order to resume consumption." Really? Addicts at present have no legal bar to choosing legitimate employment as a means of earning their daily (or hourly) fix. But because their drug use impairs their cognitive abilities and judgment, they seek out the path of least resistance to getting that next fix. A petty thief or mugger or armed robber or whore or pimp doesn't have to show up to work on time, put in a set number of hours or take orders from a boss (well, the whore does). They only have to work long enough to score -- which ironically generally requires them to work longer in worse conditions than a legit job.
May '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Michael Labeit Besides that, Rand was a genius. · Dec 11 at 9:38pm
Yes, in many ways, albeit something of a moral idiot.
1) John McWhorter is a very bright guy. His argument here was simply stupid- he flat out asserted that virtually all black crime, and fatherless homes, are caused by the drug war. This is the argument of a seventh grade term paper turned in with no research.
2) Marijuana indeed ought to be as legal as, and handled in the same way as, any legal narcotic- be it Tyleno 3 or Oxycontin. Prescribed for a recognized indication and doctors regulated and disciplined for improper 'scripts just as with any of the other drugs. But marijuana over-the-counter or freely grown? No.
3) We already tried to ban alcohol (and its fundamental purpose for most is not getting "high"). It didn't work- why? Because you couldn't dial it back again; the cavalier suggestions that we legalize currently illegal "recreational drugs" are puerile. Every favorable argument not only neglects unintended consequences, it desperately attempts to avoid thinking about them at all. Makes you think that the real goal is not libertarianism.
May '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Stuart Creque
Michael Labeit
The Rothbard test applies to children, not to adults because at their age, adults possess the requisite cognitive abilities to make rational decisions. Whether they choose to be rational is another story.
That is a dangerously naive assumption, Many adults who engage in long-term drug use lose the requisite cognitive abilities to make any rational decision that interferes with their drug use.
"Adults...possess the requisite cognitive abilities to make rational decisions" is not a dangerously naive assumption - its a general proposition subject to exceptions, some of which I've already mentioned.
Drug prohibition increases drug prices. Drug legalization reduces drug prices. At which prices do addicts have an easier time financing their addictions: low prices or high prices? When prices are lower, addicts have to commit less crimes such as theft, burglary, larceny, etc., in order to pay for their addiction. At higher prices, they have to commit more crimes in order to pay for their addiction.
Edited on December 13, 2010 at 8:28amMay '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
The distribution and consumption of alcohol cannot be banned because its pervasiveness would require an unprecedented totalitarian state and even then, given empirical data, an alcohol market would very likely remain. Why can it not be dialed back? Because of this reason.
Most people drink alcohol because of, among other things, its soothing effects. Marijuana produces a similar if stronger effect. As far as puerile suggestions goes, well, I suppose I could respond by saying that pro-prohibition claims and arguments suck, but then again I would not be proving anything. You've said that anti-prohibition arguments are lacking. Demonstrating that they are lacking is of course another matter.
Dec '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Michael Labeit
"Adults...possess the requisite cognitive abilities to make rational decisions" is not a dangerously naive assumption - its a general proposition subject to exceptions, some of which I've already mentioned.
Drug prohibition increases drug prices. Drug legalization reduces drug prices. At which prices do addicts have an easier time financing their addictions: low prices or high prices? When prices are lower, addicts have to commit less crimes such as theft, burglary, larceny, etc., in order to pay for their addiction. At higher prices, they have to commit more crimes in order to pay for their addiction. · Dec 12 at 11:23pm
Edited on Dec 12 at 11:28 pm
First: a key exception to the rule that adults have the cognitive capacity to make rational decisions is when those adults are drug-impaired. A drug habit leads to long-term impairment in judgment.
Second: how much cheaper have tobacco cigarettes become recently? They've been legal forever, yet it's lucrative to smuggle them from low-tax states or for Indian reservations to sell them tax free. Will dope be unregulated and untaxed?
Third: for a junkie, cheaper drugs mean more fixes, not reduced total expenditure on drugs.
Dec '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Speaking of dope taxes (which will inevitably lead to decriminalized drugs becoming as or more costly than current supplies, which will in turn lead to continued profits for illegal suppliers who will add tax evasion to their raison d'etre):
San Jose approves pot club tax
May '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Psychosis fears about taking drugs? Seriously? Like make the users lose their minds and run around chopping heads? Let's at least be serious and not try to create a "boogeyman".
Nov '10
Re: A Powerful Argument Against Drug Prohibition
Sisyphus:
Rob Long
But the problem with Indian reservations isn't alcohol -- that's the symptom. · Dec 11 at 12:25pm
And alcohol hit the Indians like a ton of bricks from the get go, Trail of Tears documents some of it. · Dec 11 at 12:45pm
Edited on Dec 11 at 12:46 pm
I think that Sisyphus has the better position about the Indians' difficulties with alcohol.
The novels of the late Tony Hillerman, a close observer and student of Indian life in the Southwest during the decades since the end of WWII, are filled with comments and observations about the destructive effects of alcohol on the population of the reservations. (And, they are enjoyable reading for many other reasons. See: http://www.amazon.com/Tony-Hillermans-Southwestern-Mysteries/lm/R1KJ9L9J4W65GS)