Now that we've completely exhausted the topic of legalizing paid sex, we turn our attention to weightier matters, like . . . drugs. Alex Massie reports that in Britain a line of coke now costs less than a half-pint of cider. He sees it as a triumph of the free market. I see it as a cheap attempt to capture more tourist trade.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The War on Drugs has been tremendously blessed in terms of its enemies. "America's Drug War: the Last White Hope" was on Showtime the other night, and if that film is representative, the legalization movement basically consists of pragmatics (for lack of a better term), doctrinaire libertarians, conspiracy theorists and addicts. The pragmatics (James Gray, Gary Johnson, some of the medical marijuana folks) make a good case based on spending, incarceration statistics and the balance of harms. Unfortunately, they are mixed in with whiny potheads and conspiracy theorists droning on about how the CIA is intentionally destroying South Central.
Drug interdiction is expensive, intrusive and labor intensive police work. The federal government spent over $20 billion last year in the War on Drugs, with limited effect. The illicit drug trade ravages large portions of Asia, Central and South America and Mexico and creates a $400 billion worldwide black market which is exploited by violent criminals, rogue nations and, yes, terrorists. Sick people are dying in extreme and unnecessary pain. Jail cells that could be used for dangerous, violent criminals are housing non violent users.
The legalization case which lays these facts out, while avoiding conspiracies and acknowledging the tragic nature of drug abuse and addiction, is compelling. Unfortunately, the anti-drug warriors can’t stop talking about the nefarious CIA and their right to get high.
Where do they get their cocaine from? It really does sound like an initial low offer to get people hooked.
Alex Massie reports that in Britain a line of coke now costs less than a half-pint of cider.
And so it should. You drink a couple of pints of the old scrumpy thinking you're having a nice refreshing mixture of apple juice and alcohol. Then you spend half the night wondering why you drank that mixture of rat piss and rat poison. And if you've ever drunk scrumpy you'll know what I'm talking about.
So in other words, Ross, you agree with the position of the movement, but you don't like the people in the movement, and you feel more compelled to engaged in a personality-driven takedown of those with the right idea than you do to engage in a substantive argument against the idea that you agree with.
Therein, ladies and gentleman, lies the poverty of our discourse. Sad, sad, sad.
Ahhh, but does a line of coke cost more than a can of Coke? That's the real question.
Therein, ladies and gentleman, lies the poverty of our discourse.
Why? If half of the arguments for a drug legalization position are sound, and the other half of the arguments are from drug users essentially making a case-by-example that Drugs Really Screw You Up, isn't it fair to be a bit conflicted about supporting the position?
"You feel more compelled to engaged in a personality-driven takedown of those with the right idea than you do to engage in a substantive argument against the idea that you agree with."
A few points: First, I don't feel compelled to do much of anything, actually. I have a Buckleyite opposition to persecution of medical marijuana users, but the Drug War isn't exceptionally high on my public policy interest list. This is possibly due to the fact that I’d rather not be aligned with a significant portion of the anti drug movement. I don't think that I am alone.
Second, If I was an ardent anti drug warrior, I’d be interested in criticism as to why my movement—with a vast array of convincing facts and arguments at its disposal—can’t seem to gain any traction. My belief is that it is at least partially because of the reasons listed above. But if you want to label criticism about the best way to craft an anti drug war message as a “personality-driven takedown,” fair enough.
Third: Isn’t the middle paragraph of my first post nothing more than a list substantive arguments?
"I’d be interested in criticism as to why my movement—with a vast array of convincing facts and arguments at its disposal—can’t seem to gain any traction."
Because, the people who have the most power to do something about the drug war are insulated from it. The problems of violence and jail time are heavily directed at the poor. How many upper class Americans have gone to jail for drug possession or distribution? As long as we continue to have two sets of rules, depending on your class, the drug war will continue. If we start convicting rich kids of felonies and throwing them in jail for 3 years you better bet we'd get change quick.
If we start convicting rich kids of felonies and throwing them in jail for 3 years you better bet we'd get change quick.
Yeah, we'd get the laws changed so that rich kids (and middle class kids) weren't convicted of felonies. You think that couldn't be done without letting poor people off also?
Yet another case of where looking at the real-world results to inform policy rather relying on theory is extremely helpful.
The fact of the matter is that while drug use is putatively a 'victimless' crime, in a significant number of instances (significant in the sense of influenceing policy), it's not, really.
This goes to not all drugs being created equal; marijuana, imho, should be legal with no more strings attached to it's use than what is already the case for alcohol and cigarettes.
But cocaine, methamphetamine, heroine? Does anyone really think that the consequences of having vials of cocaine, bubble-packs of speed (twenty to a card) and so on and so forth available in one of the aisles of the liquor department is going to be anything but trouble?
If you think otherwise, then you're most probably either a fundamentalist libertarian, or you have zero real-world experience with the harm these drugs do.
But patterns of drug use and abuse is a complex issue; ironically, this is one area of sentencing where judges should have much more leeway to set sentences than is usually the case, not much less leeway than is usual. Iow, precisely the opposite of what we have adopted for the SCWOD.
Does anyone really think that the consequences of having vials of cocaine, bubble-packs of speed (twenty to a card) and so on and so forth available in one of the aisles of the liquor department is going to be anything but trouble?
For one thing, it is not necessary to legalize all drugs. BUT, that said, even so, I'd argue the scenario of selling packs of speed along with liquor would cause much less societal damage than what we're doing now. Many thousands of drug users who never would have become addicted have been incarcerated and their life prospects permanently damaged by a criminal record. And that's not to mention the terrible corruption and violence problems in Mexico, Columbia, etc caused by prohibition in the U.S.
I see it as a cheap attempt to capture more tourist trade.
Do you view the Emporer's Club scandal, given the prices, as a clever way to induce you into prostitution, and, if so, what number do you call? So it's a joke isn't it about the inducment to go to London to get coke?
I ran into a nurse a few years ago with some stories about Jamaica. The last time she went she stayed 'in the mountains' with an 'aunt' for maybe a month. She enjoyed her time there. When she was saying good-bye, her aunt told her she shouldn't, unfortunately, come back. Why? Because she didn't smoke marijuana and everybody in the village did. Tell me how, once you make drugs legal, you can keep them, by contract in a social or business group, from becoming normative, and I think people will be more receptive to the idea of making them legal. Our curent drug laws keep drug use from becoming normative except where there is an enormous priority to the contrary.
Tell me how, once you make drugs legal, you can keep them, by contract in a social or business group, from becoming normative, and I think people will be more receptive to the idea of making them legal.
You mean the same way that everyone is forced to smoke cigarettes and drink beer these days?
Where do you live? Not even college fraternities have compulsory smoking these days. And a non-drinker is fairly OK in a college too, once he explains that is isn't interested.
You can even be really good friends with lots of potheads if you don't partake. Just pass the joint on to the next person. Blame a medical condition (which I actually have) and even the biggest pothead will say "dude that sucks, well more for everybody".
The problem with legalization is the same with trade liberalization: the demerits are obvious, while the benefits are hidden. Joe loses his job, 300,000 people save 2 minutes every day: Jane gets hooked on smack from the corner store, 20,000 people aren't robbed by junkies. Externalities, especially diffuse externalities, are badly handled by the human brain and our collective decision making abilities. Combine that with the novelty of nearly all illicit drugs (heroin and cocaine are the product of the chemical revolution, to say nothing of various amphetamines) which reduces our ability to manage consumption culturally or even conceive of moderate use in a stable environment, and you have our current situation.
The drug war is one more thing that is truly the fault of the progressive left and women's suffrage. The temperance movement, of which the drug war is an offshoot, was a major joint venture of those two forces. Not too shocking to see that these two forces of fascism have committed yet another crime against society.
And yes, I did really say that and do really mean that. See Liberal Fascism for a nice catalogue, or any history of Prohibition and the Rockefeller Laws. As for women's suffrage being a bad thing - women make decisions differently from men. They, taken as a population, are more receptive to certain types and forms of argument. They also apply different weights to policy outcomes than men do. We are only slowly grappling with this - it is a huge societal change and will take several centuries, at least, to handle. Meanwhile we are consigned to less than optimal policies in all areas because women now have the vote.
Giving women the vote was the right thing to do, but it has certainly done all sorts of horrible things and will continue to create huge costs until we are better able to frame debates for women, as well as hopefully changing, somewhat, the way that they evaluate and make decisions. This is similar to other social changes (no fault divorce, the pill) that have large benefits and look to be just in the abstract, but create massive dislocation over many generations. I wouldn't roll back women's suffrage, but I definitely would bring back a restricted franchise.
Hey,
I was with you right up until you went on your anti-women's suffrage rant in paragraphs 4 and 5. Could you please further elaborate (with references) as to why the fact that women make decisions differently is necessarily a disadvantage? Also, what specific horrible things have occurred as a result of women's suffrage?