Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What’s Your General Rule on Drug Prohibition?
Let me be very upfront here: I’m one of those radicals who thinks we should legalize all drugs. I’m not just in favor of marijuana legalization, but also the “hard stuff”: heroin, cocaine, LSD, and just about anything else you can think of. If you’re one of those weirdos who wants to put mescaline in your eggnog, I don’t think there should be a law against it.
We’ve had several awesome discussions recently here on drug prohibition. However, one thing that seems to be lacking, among prohibition advocates is a general principle. So to any of you prohibitionists, I’m issuing a challenge. I’m willing to listen to any prohibition standard you’re willing to propose. What I’d like to hear is a general rule on what the government should and shouldn’t prohibit, but I’m going to add a sticking point: you must apply it across the board to drugs, prescription medications, tobacco, and alcohol.
There it is. Prohibitionists are able to come up with all kinds of arguments, but I’ve yet to hear one that couldn’t also reasonably be applied to alcohol. But, I could be wrong (it happens… occasionally), so let’s hear it: What’s your general rule?
Published in Culture, Domestic Policy, Law
Late to this discussion but here are my observations:
Fred has obviously chosen to rig the terms of the debate. He is basically arguing from the same position that liberals do when they coined the term “Zero Tolerance,” which is, in my opinion, more should more aptly described as “Zero Thinking.”
For example, when it comes to firearms liberals have one of Fred’s precious “guiding principles” that all guns and anything that they touch are bad. Therefore a Pop-tart chewed in a particular way, a drawing, a child pointing a finger or a teenager wearing an NRA teeshirt are all the moral equivalent of Sandy Hook, Columbine and Aurora all wrapped up in one. That frames the debate so that there is no debate.
But a Pop-tart is not an AK-47 and cocaine is not a bottle of beer. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
Hell, there’s not even a universal understanding about adulthood. The average age of consent in the US is 16, voting and military service at 18, alcohol and tobacco at 21 and getting out of your parent’s basement and getting your own health insurance at 26.
Pure Libertarianism begins its journey with the idea that each man is an island and individual actions are just that – of no consequence to anyone. To the socialist we are all slaves to one another and therefore should subjugate ourselves to the greater good through government planning. Neither is realistic and neither works. Freedom and decent, limited government lie in a very large gray area in the middle. I won’t pretend otherwise.
I have no issue with general principles. Of course we need to establish a basis for why we pass laws. But we also have to have some flexibility, so that the reality of a particular situation can be brought to bare.
Having said that, it’s moot (not mute). The left are the say anything, do anything crowd. When I ask my liberal friends about various things, like “How exactly does making it harder for me to get a gun prevent people from getting shot? Shouldn’t we be figuring out who shoots people and make it harder for them to get a gun?” The answer is “Well, if it has the potential to help, I’m in favor.”
It’s those cats, Fred, you should be talking to about principles. Because they ain’t got any, when it comes to making laws.
I’ll go ahead and answer you selective quote of my comment but you may want to be more honest and challenge me on the entire quote.
See Ryan’s earlier comments on the difference between alcohol and these drugs.
I have friends whose beautiful young son was introduced to meth. He is lucky to be alive but his mind and brain will never be the same and his parents are also suffering the consequences to this day.
Would the same have happened if this teenager drank 12 oz. of beer or a glass or two of wine? Doubtful. Alcohol is a very controlled substance that comes with severe penalties when abused if other people become harmed. But when most often used doesn’t produce harmful behavior at all or have any long-lasting effects. In fact wine in moderation has actually been shown to have beneficial health effects. The same cannot be said of heroin, LSD or meth when used repeatedly in small doses which can permanently alter the chemistry of the brain and has dangerous consequences for others in the immediate proximity of the user.
Okay, so, I don’t know why you assume I haven’t heard this argument before. I have, ad nauseum. Also, I don’t know why you assume I’d be okay with welfare. I’m not. Let me be real for a moment: I’d happily end all welfare tomorrow if I could vote for it. (Would you?)
But there are a few simple counter arguments to your claim:
1. The War on Drugs costs between $15 and 40 billion dollars per year. Ending it would yield that savings.
2. You wouldn’t need to plow all that into welfare programs. Because your entire argument is based on the premise that somehow all these drug addicts don’t already get welfare.
Read the cited USA Today article and then talk to me about the frequency or percentage of houses that contain alcoholic beverages that blow up.
You’re not really arguing that because there has been a few cases of homes that were destroyed because someone got drunk should be justification for allowing more Americans to have meth labs in their homes, are you? How relativistic of you if you are.
While there is certainly limited experience with legalization of certain drugs, it is nonetheless in a much different context than the situation would be were these drugs made legal today.
As I pointed out previously, most substances have been legal at one time or another in the past. But how legalization would play out today also depends on many factors which are not equivalent to those times, such as a) what would the actual availability/potency/delivery vehicle of the drugs be, b) how would it rank with the alternatives, c) what effect would our greater knowledge of the drug’s properties have on its use (i.e., people used to think speed was relatively harmless, now we know better).
Please remember that my default position is more liberalization of drug laws. I simply have a much different mechanism of how and why I think we should get there.
As I said, the Fred Cole response to any legitimate argument is “BUT ALCOHOL!!”
Would you care to address any serious disagreements, or are you simply going to run around spouting “but alcohol” as you have on every other thread leading up to this one? I don’t accuse everyone (actually, almost nobody) of acting in bad faith, but you most certainly are.
Quick question: do you believe that alcohol can be controlled in the same way that heroin can be controlled? If so, then you win the argument. In your head, anyway, as that was a rhetorical question for which there is an obvious answer. As I’ve said multiple times, the same stupid argument you keep going back to rests on a deeply flawed (and easily rejected) assumption that the use of Alcohol and the use of Heroin are essentially the same. You just keep going back and going back and making the same ridiculous claim over and over again, but you can only beat a dead horse for so long. They are as different as day and night, and until you are willing to discuss each on its own individual merits (recognizing that it is not absolutely necessary to reach the same outcome), I am going to take you as arguing in bad faith. You are insisting on equality of outcome (funny, that’s the same crap we see out of mainstream liberals), and all your arguments are based on that incorrect presumption.
I would say humility is all of the above.
I agree on your three points. But my point is not mutually exclusive.
If you hate it then why do you advocate it?
And yes, supporting zoning laws definitely makes you a communist. #hyperbole
Okay. So I’d consider coercive zoning laws to be immoral. National borders depend on what you do with them. The Republican party is morally neutral. People who oppose ssm are just wrong, and not immoral. Government is immoral when its initiating the use of force against people.
As to individual people, it’s not my place to judge them. I actually think most people are moral most of the time.
But Frank’s right, my objection is a moral one. But morality doesn’t enter into my OP, I’m merely looking for a general principle, “Why X and not Y.”
This is simply false. Speed has not been widely available and used everywhere. On top of that, Meth is not speed. Talk to a doctor about the physiological differences between ordinary speed and Meth. Meth creates a strong self-confidence effect … as distinctly opposed to things like Caffeine or even Ritalin/Adderol/etc… Cocaine might be something of an exception, and I wouldn’t be terribly adverse to seeing it legalized in some highly-regulated form or another, although I would like to see studies about the positive vs. negative qualities.
Concentrated cocaine or heroin are difficult to produce and are (likely) more modern developments. But coca leaves and poppy plants grow ubiquitously and many regions, and using them is much, much simpler (and less dangerous) than fermenting/distilling alcohol.
Your argument still has some merit, especially in regions such as Europe where grain grows more readily than such naturally psychoactive plants. Asquared’s comment about disinfecting water is also very astute.
However, most anyone who has tried both alcohol and other illicit drugs can attest that alcohol’s psychoactive properties provide a favorable combination of relaxation, mildness and slight stimulation which is rivaled by few other substances. I think the notion that alcohol has survived the years because “most people just like how we feel after taking it better than other drugs” has great merit.
And that’s not an argument in favor of prohibiting any other substance, just explaining why alcohol might be in a category of its own.
Indeed, we come once again to differences over actionable harm. Differences over how direct or immediate a harm must be before it can be legitimately addressed through law; differences over whether a particular harm is in fact direct or not; differences over whether a particular harm is in fact immediate or not; differences over whether the community as a community has legitimate interests that sometimes outweigh individual interests.
There is no way to categorically claim that prohibition efforts have been failures. Prohibition efforts, even alcohol prohibition in the twenties, dramatically reduce the usage of the substances. Alcoholism rates during the time of the Volstead Act dropped by a lot, and alcohol use after it was repealed remained at far lower levels than it had existed prior to prohibition. And while we don’t have the means to measure the counterfactual, I think it’s more than reasonable to assume that usage rates of heroin, cocaine, meth and other “hard” drugs would be higher today in our society if they were legal. So from the standpoint of discouraging usage and impeding the acceptance and tolerance of drug use, I don’t think one can claim that prohibition is a failure.
The question becomes what trade offs occur to achieve the success. During alcohol prohibition the trade offs which included the rise of organized crime, the increased corruption in government and law enforcement, and the general undermining of respect for the rule of law in the general population proved not worth it to the majority of Americans. But I don’t believe that the same level of trade off exists in the prohibition efforts today involving hard drugs. And specifically, the claim that prohibition created the meth problem is a serious case of chicken and egg fallacy. Government action began after the growth of methamphetamine usage began to cause problems and garner government attention.
Glad to be of service.
You don’t get to use the negative consequences of prohibition to argue for prohibition.
Great. So ending the war on drugs would save enough money to fund the massive increases in entitlement spending. What about the social costs of this massive entitlement and corresponding increase in dependence? What about the economic costs?
I’m all in favor of massive reform in “the war on drugs.” For instance, forget about weed… secondly, focus resources in areas where they can actually make a difference. Drone strikes on mexican cartels, etc… (tongue in cheek). Find the areas where you actually can reasonably expect controls to work and hit those areas hard. Find areas where regulation might be better than prohibition.
The worst approach you can have is extremism in either direction. As EJ pointed out, it is equally naive to assume that human nature and independent decisions will sort everything out once all is legal as it is to assume that we can predict and control what everyone will do. The only rational thing to do is recognize problems where they exist and then determine where our interventions will either result in a net benefit or a net harm. I do not believe that all regulation/intervention when it comes to drugs will be a net harm. I am perfectly willing to accept that an unrelenting flat-prohibition is unwise and unhelpful.
It could be insightful if it were true.
Based on my own experience with controlled substances, though, it’s not true. Admittedly, I’ve only ever used at prescription doses for prescribed purposes, even if my own prescription wasn’t current and my usage technically “illegal” – nonetheless, if the side-effects at these low, non-socially-dangerous doses were enough to keep me from wanting more, I can’t imagine the side-effects would have gotten any better had I taken more.
Though one of the awesome things about alcohol, I suppose, from the social control perspective, is there’s not a super-huge difference between the dose that causes seriously erratic behavior and the dose that’s likely to kill you. Tylenol is perceived as such a “safe” drug in part because by the time it starts visibly affecting behavior, you’ve probably ingested enough to die of liver failure, anyhow. And it’s no secret that the liver-killing properties of Tylenol is why Tylenol-opiate mixes are generally perceived as less threatening to society than opiates alone.
The general principle of Conservatives would generally include the notion that the person endorsing change are required to show that society is better of people are better off. It also calls for experimentation and proof that something works before we force it on an entire country.
These are both principles that you reject. For example, with this thread, you are placing the burden on people defending the status quo, which is a libertarian principle, not a conservative one. And you have a one size fits all solution for the entire country that you are convinced is superior and you don’t need any evidence because, as Frank said, you’ve decided that people that disagree with you are immoral, but you’ve also failed to understand is effectively imposing your view on people that disagree with you (as opposed to the people that want the decision to handled at the state and local level).
Heroin is being controlled now? Because judging from the numbers of overdose deaths, the War on Heroin is an utter failure.
Because Alcohol is not Meth.
The ease of manufacture and therefore availability isn’t the same. The effects of use aren’t the same.
And BTW, if you object to any use of government force, then you object to the concept of government. There hasn’t been a government instituted among men, ever, that hasn’t had some level of the ability to use force over the governed. I think that is what makes a society.
Well…
However (pdf),
So your flat statement is a matter of dispute, at best…
One needs to look at all the effects, not just the intended one.
As always, you missed the point. I agree that drugs should be legal, but only after we eliminate the welfare state. You don’t care about the order.
Hey, you are the one that called me names for endorsing zoning laws. To the anarcho-capitalist like you, it is a soft-form of communism. Many anarcho-capitalists argue that property taxes mean that you don’t actually own your property, you are just renting it from the government.
Fred or Frank,
Please answer the following:
Under what circumstances should meth be available?
Should it be available from local pharmacies?
Or should Americans be permitted to manufacture it in their homes?
Should pregnant women be permitted to take it? If not, how would that be regulated?
Do you consider meth a recreational drug?
By making meth legal then won’t that make it more accessible to children because it’s around the home? Yes or No?
If not, what are the specific controls, if any, that you would place on its use?
Now my commentary:
This sort topic and the way it’s presented I do find somewhat dishonest as Ryan points out because it’s like lobbing a hand grenade into a room and then trying to sort out thousands of conflicting and highly charged comments afterward.
To argue that alcohol is as dangerous as meth or heroin is nonsense. If these drugs becomes legal and are as readily available as alcohol – sold through your local grocery store – do you honestly think that the consequences will be similar to alcohol abuse or far exceed them?
Maybe I should start posting photos of meth and heroin victims to give this whole discussion some graphic punch rather than letting us all speak about this topic in the abstract.
Look, it’s been 140 comments. What I’m not seeing here (other than one or two exceptions) is a statement of a general principle.
If it’s harm to the individual, then we should prohibit alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and all the rest.
If its harm to others, then alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and all the rest.
If its intoxication, then we should ban alcohol and marijuana, and others.
If its its incapacitation, then we should ban alcohol, marijuana, heroin, and others, but not cocaine.
If its welfare costs, then we damn sure should ban alcohol and tobacco.
If its causing people to crash cars, when we should ban alcohol, marijuana, and the rest.
If its that it causes people to fight other people then we should ban alcohol, but not marijuana.
Or to put it another way: We already have a legal intoxicant widely available in society. Why do we need others?
You don’t get to tell me how to argue. You have yet to describe how meth, LSD and heroin are to be controlled in a non-prohibition state. Until you do that, I can’t take your huffiness quite seriously.
I’m not defending Fred’s position that the government has no place in moral society, only that Fred’s philosophy is consistent with not worrying about whether the welfare state is repealed before drugs are legalized. He’s wrong, but consistent.
His position is that all coercion is immoral. I think he’s wrong, but that’s not to say he is being unreasonable in coming to that conclusion.
This summary shows you didn’t understand this argument well.
I don’t assume that you haven’t heard it before, I assume that you don’t care. And, yes, I would vote for eliminating all welfare programs today, though I would favor a transition period. In fact, the point is, from our current position, I would vote for eliminating the welfare state before I would vote for legalizing hard drugs.
I don’t understand the second point, but that’s not unusual, I don’t understand most of your points.
As for your first point, I completely agree. I’m generally in favor of legalization because criminalization isn’t working. That is very different than your argument that any restrictions are immoral.