What Motley Crue Can Teach Us About Drug Legalization
Anyone supporting drug legalization must reconcile their position with the existence of these coked-up hallucinating tattooed hooligans on motorcycles. Most citizens fear legalization would lead to the rapid decline of Western Civilization: the youth would jump at drugs; dope would be in every home and every vein; morality would fly out the window, and life as we know it would collapse all around us.
With these "esteemed" gentlemen as examples, only the deranged could support drug legalization. That is, until one examines the specifics more closely. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (52)
Dan Mahoney
It shames me to admit knowing this, but Nikki Sixx is the bass player, not the lead guitarist.
Published: August 13, 2008 9:00 PM
nick gray
There could, of course, be another reason- playing rock music on stage gives you drug use immunity! Exercise and loud music- who knew?
Published: August 13, 2008 10:02 PM
Greg Day
No matter where I fall on drug legalization I wish the arguments were stronger. So, because the members of Motley Crew cleaned up we should legalize drugs?
Ok, so it's not that simple. My view of the argument is that because prison is a criminal hardening factory then keeping people who abuse drugs out of prison allows for reform. But who will this convince? The other side of the argument is that society must be protected and drugs are seen as destructive to many more than just the person taking them.
Published: August 14, 2008 12:30 AM
Miklos Hollender
If all other things are equal, I would not legalize drugs, not until anti-discrimination laws are repelled and property rights properly established. Because if drugs were legalized but these other things not changed, you could not not hire a junkie, not rent your apartment to a junkie, kick a junkie out of your bar etc. So basically you improve the freedom of junkies but decrease the freedom of other people.
Let's do it the other way around: sort these things out first, and only legalize questionable acts when there is a firm system of property rights established, so that other people can isolate themselves from questionable lifestyles, if they so wish.
Published: August 14, 2008 3:25 AM
jeffrey
Sitting at the airport, the person next to me just said: I love Mises and I love Motley Crue!
There we go.
Published: August 14, 2008 7:42 AM
Jordan
Vedran, loved the article, but you "pulled a Roberts" and got your Dylan quote wrong.
See here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021861.html
Cheers,
Jordan
Published: August 14, 2008 8:39 AM
JimC
I agree with Miklos. Legalizing drugs first would probably lead to users becoming another priviledged victim class. There is a clear trend toward extending equal employment and other protections to groups defined by volountary behaviors rather than innate characteristics: drinkers are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act, homosexuals are protected by numerous anti-discrimination laws. A notable exception is tobacco users; I know of at least one company that prohibits employees from smoking even in their own homes as a condition of employment.
While it is wrong for the state to enforce blanket prohibitions, it is just for property owners to set the rules within the limits of their property or as conditions on voluntary contracts (as the company mentioned above has done). Drug rights, like all true rights, are property rights. Recogizing a narrow set of rights while denying others is still interventionism, which Mises showed will inevitably lead to calls for further intervention (a la anti-discrimination law). A better approach is to pursue monetary and fiscal reforms to "starve the beast" so that the state simply cannot command the resources it would need to enforce prohibition, and to simultaneosly roll back existing anti-discrimination laws in favor of the rights to private property and freedom of association and contract. Then private property owners would be in a position to decide what types of behaviors to allow or disallow on their property.
Published: August 14, 2008 8:42 AM
Charles Landesman
The argument for the legalization of addictive drugs is extremely weak. It is based upon a cost-benefit analysis, but it is based on a mere conjecture that in the long run, the benefits of legalization will outrun the costs. But there is no data to back this up. One might examine other countries, for example China in the 19th century when drugs were freely available. One could say: let's experiment: legalize them for, say, five years, and see what happens. Yet this experiment, like most experiments in the political world, would be irreversible and too dangerous to try.
Published: August 14, 2008 8:43 AM
Ryan
Unfortunately, it appears many individuals have still managed to learn little, if anything, from the problems created by alcohol prohibition. It is important to remember that the primary argument against the repeal of alcohol prohibition was that "everyone would become an alcoholic." Naturally, this never materialized. Prohibition only managed to create Al Capone and organized crime in the United States.
The following is an interesting website related to the repeal of drug prohibition:
LEAP
Published: August 14, 2008 9:13 AM
Michael A. Clem
I didn't see this article as being an argument for legalization, but as dismissing common arguments against legalization. The fundamental moral argument remains: simply using a drug is not an initiation of force or fraud.
And why do we need a "legalization" experiment when we had plenty of history before legalization? And counter-experiments, like Prohibition in the 30's?
And by all means, let's not fix any societal problems until more fundamental problems are solved first. But who is to say which problems are "more fundamental", and need to be solved first? We live in a holistic world, not an atomistic one.
Published: August 14, 2008 9:13 AM
Dick Fox
I am a strong libertarian, but I do believe that some substances must be controlled. For example mind altering drugs, and certain toxins and biological agents should be among the controlled substances.
To address the substances mentioned in the article, for a libertarian society to function properly the citizen must have the ability to reason. Mind altering drugs take away reason and so take away the foundation of a libertarian society.
In justifying drug legalization many say that we should punish actions that harm others rather than actions that simply harm an individual. This argument assumes that when a person has no reason that there is no societal harm, but it is the loss of reason that leads to most drug related crimes. The drug user is unable to reason properly and so he commits the crime. Once the crime is committed there can be no protection of the victim. Knowing this, but not controlling mind altering drugs actually strikes a blow at a libertarian society.
That said our current “war on drugs” is a joke. Many drugs that are mind altering are not controlled substances, alcohol being the most obvious, while drugs with minor influence on reason and certain positive uses are controlled. There are few drugs that should fall under the controlled substance laws.
Published: August 14, 2008 9:15 AM
Michael A. Clem
Sorry, I meant "And why do we need a 'legalization' experiment when we had plenty of history before they were made illegal?"
Published: August 14, 2008 9:22 AM
Tim Kern
"...coked-up hallucinating tattooed hooligans on motorcycles"
So, what precisely is wrong with motorcycles? After riding and racing them for over 40 years, I can honestly say I've never been coked-up, been a hooligan, or had a tattoo.
For that matter, what's wrong with tattoos?
Focus, people. Focus...
Published: August 14, 2008 9:24 AM
Michael A. Clem
The drug user is unable to reason properly and so he commits the crime.
The most obvious counter-argument to this is simply that a majority of drug users do NOT commit crimes (except for the illegality of using the drug, of course). Only a minority of users do so. The same can be said for people who drink alcohol.
The aspect of "reason" in a libertarian society is an interesting one, especially when it comes to religion, but I'm no more comfortable with a government trying to regulate or criminalize irrationality than I am with them regulating anything else.
A much better solution for "cultural libertarians" is to rely on culture, not governmental legislation, to enforce unwanted behaviors. The power of ostracism and peer pressure is actually more effective when you don't expect the legal system to enforce morality. Yeah, yeah, murder and robbery are "moral" issues, too, but they are more than that--they are clear violations of individual rights, involving the initiation of force.
Published: August 14, 2008 9:35 AM
Curt Howland
So while they were all drugged out, who did they kill?
Rape?
Rob?
In fact, did any of them commit any crime because they were all drugged up?
No.
You cannot be a Libertarian and believe in prohibition, because prohibition requires coercion where no crime has been committed.
When a crime is committed, prosecution for that crime is not coercion.
Maybe the only reason drugs are still illegal is because the powers that be cannot figure out how to make the a privileged victim class after demonizing drug use for so long. Hmmmm....
Published: August 14, 2008 9:59 AM
Person
I have a strangely relevant (I mean, apropos) post on my blog now, that argues that the main reason alcohol stays legal is that people are able to cook up reasons for drinking that, while false, they can actually convince themselves that they believe, and strongly enough to fend off the legislature.
For me, the biggest problem with the case for drug prohibition (as I say on my blog) is that, even if I accepted every single argument against legalization, every bizarre claim about what would result, that still is incapable of making the case, even on consequentialist grounds! Such arguments would at best say why use should be restricted to monitored "padded room" equivalents that contain the alleged spillover effects. But prohibitions refuse even this!
Published: August 14, 2008 10:33 AM
RWW
I am a strong libertarian, but I do believe that some substances must be controlled.
Oh, how watered-down the term "libertarian" has become.
Published: August 14, 2008 10:56 AM
Linda
What ever happened in the British pilot project, with physicians giving prescription controlled dose...to heroin? addicts.....to enable them to maintain their families, jobs when they could not kick the habit themselves? Did it fail....considering the drug addiction as an medical problem rather than a criminal problem? Never saw any followup.....One must take responsibility for one's behavior with help.
Published: August 14, 2008 11:01 AM
Paul
>>To address the substances mentioned in the article, for a libertarian society to function properly the citizen must have the ability to reason. Mind altering drugs take away reason and so take away the foundation of a libertarian society.
This argument is absurd. In a libertarian society you have a choice of what you want to do with your life. Whether your choice causes harm to someone else is a different story. We have people who can't reason no matter what they ingest in their system. Legalization of alcohol did not turn everyone to drunk disfunctional people.
Making something illegal doesn't prevent someone from finding a way to obtain it. Likewise, legalization will not make a person more likely to use the substance if the person was dead-set against it in the first place.
Published: August 14, 2008 11:36 AM
Paul
>>To address the substances mentioned in the article, for a libertarian society to function properly the citizen must have the ability to reason. Mind altering drugs take away reason and so take away the foundation of a libertarian society.
This argument is absurd. In a libertarian society you have a choice of what you want to do with your life. Whether your choice causes harm to someone else is a different story. We have people who can't reason no matter what they ingest in their system. Legalization of alcohol did not turn everyone to drunk disfunctional people.
Making something illegal doesn't prevent someone from finding a way to obtain it. Likewise, legalization will not make a person more likely to use the substance if the person was dead-set against it in the first place.
Published: August 14, 2008 11:37 AM
mikey
"What ever happened in the British pilot project, with physicians giving prescription controlled dose...to heroin? addicts.....to enable them to maintain their families, jobs when they could not kick the habit themselves? Did it fail....considering the drug addiction as an medical problem rather than a criminal problem? Never saw any followup.....One must take responsibility for one's behavior with help."
The last info I saw on this was a TV documentary made in Liverpool.The police had closed a number
of local cop shops as crime had fallen by as much as 95 per cent.Addicts simply had no reason to commit robberies.Sorry I can't cite the actual source. This was about 3 yrs ago.
Published: August 14, 2008 12:34 PM
Brent
>> "The argument for the legalization of addictive drugs is extremely weak. It is based upon a cost-benefit analysis, but it is based on a mere conjecture that in the long run, the benefits of legalization will outrun the costs."
Have you never heard the libertarian argument that you own your own body (i.e., you own yourself -- you are not someone's slave)???
Published: August 14, 2008 12:37 PM
the dope monster
I love drugs... all different types of drugs.
Published: August 14, 2008 12:50 PM
David Spellman
Why do ordinary people support the war on drug users? Because drug users might commit crimes? But how can we justify imprisoning people because they might have committed a crime when they did not actually commit any crime?
Philip K. Dick's story "Minority Report" is a great analogy. Imprisoning people for the crime of using drugs is similar to imprisoning people for thinking about crimes. If no one has actually done another person harm, how are we justified in punishing them?
Of course, some people do commit crimes and acts of violence while intoxicated (and other people commit these acts while sober, too). They should be punished for their actions.
Criminalizing drug use is an extension of the pervasive thought in our society that it is okay to criminalize anything we disagree with (even disagreement) if we have political power. Woe to those with this mindset when their enemies gain the upper hand. Giving the state power to do your bidding also gives your enemies the power to make you do their bidding.
Published: August 14, 2008 1:17 PM
Som
Hmm people have usually used drug users such as Motley Crue to justify the war on drugs. Nice work turning that on its head.
Its amazing what people can recover from given the chance. Great article. Anyone interested in how crazy the Motley Crue were should read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Dirt-Confessions-Worlds-Most-Notorious/dp/0060392886
it's a testament to liberty that people can actually have the willpower to recover from things like this.
Published: August 14, 2008 1:32 PM
Dick Fox
One problem Libertarians have convincing people of the wisdom of their ideas is that they attempt to justify their principles devoid of common sense.
No one wants to face a person driving an automobile who is inebriated beyond the point of control. A Libertarian who argues that such a person should be allowed to engage in behavior that could endanger another until that person actually commits a violation against another person or property rightfully should be considered a kook, and loses the debate before it starts.
A similar issue is allowing the possession of substances such as anthrax, VX, GHB, rohypnol, and ketamine. All can have a devastating effect on others yet the Libertarian would wait until someone was killed or raped before acting.
As I stated before there are substances that should be controlled. It would not be difficult to classify substances that create a high probability of being used in a way that others could be violated.
As is too often the case the arguments here supporting drug abuse are superficial and do not address the real issue of controlled substances. Rather they argue from the point of objecting to existing laws that do not properly control dangerous substances then unfairly punish some who do not deserve punishment. But bad law does not change the common sense principle that some substances should be controlled by their very nature and potential harm in the hands of malicious individuals.
Published: August 14, 2008 3:16 PM
eric lansing
"No one wants to face a person driving an automobile who is inebriated beyond the point of control."
where did anyone say they support this? Bunch of blabbering by you...
Published: August 14, 2008 3:36 PM
Florida Economist
The entire issue surrounding the legalization of drugs is extremely complex. And it can not be solved by applying one school of thought. Life is too dynamic to be governed by one school. No matter which one; dreams of a utopian society that enjoys 100% freedom regarding use of substances without incident will never come true. Man is very much imperfect.
We can not say that if we legalize Marijuana for example, that “society” will be able to manage its use. That scenario is simply not realistic. There would be those that abuse it even if it is legalized, just as they do over the counter medication. What we can say is stop treating drug abuse as a criminal act. There is nothing wrong with controlling substances that have the ability to physically change a person’s chemistry to the point of sparking addiction that leads to that individual loosing control over their thoughts and actions which may lead to a negative impact on others. That person has actually lost their individually to the drug itself. Thus by breaking or preventing that addiction, we have helped to protect individuality not hamper it.
Published: August 14, 2008 4:03 PM
Dick Fox
Florida Economist,
Thanks for a reasoned response.
eric,
Thanks for nothing and I mean that in the nicest way. Your post adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
Published: August 14, 2008 4:36 PM
Michael A. Clem
No one wants to face a person driving an automobile who is inebriated beyond the point of control. A Libertarian who argues that such a person should be allowed to engage in behavior that could endanger another until that person actually commits a violation against another person or property rightfully should be considered a kook, and loses the debate before it starts.
Now you're talking about something else entirely. Never mind the question about how well enforcement actually works at keeping drunks off the road. I think an argument can be made that a drunk driver is increasing the risk of accidents to other drivers, but that would not entail regulating alcohol, but driving. A more effective solution (but also considered kooky) is to privatize the roads. Private property owners have the right to set reasonable rules for the use of their property.
Published: August 14, 2008 4:59 PM
Jim C
Dick Fox:
You're right. Poorly thought out arguments for drug legalization (particularly by left libertarians) give liberty a bad name and usually have more to do with libertinism than liberty. It's clear that recreational drug use needs to be controlled.
The question is, how to do so justly and efficiently? The libertarian answer is, through the enforcement of private property rights and contractual obligations.
Take your example of inebriated drivers; an owner of a private road has both the incentive and the right to restrain, or even better to prevent, them from driving on his road. Unlike the state, a private owner constrained by profit, loss, and liability, also has the incentive to do so efficiently and without unduly interfering with his other (sober) customers.
Immune from profit, loss and liability, and thus unable to calculate economically, the state has no way to rationally determine what, how, or to what extent to regulate or prohibit. Moreover, the state actively prevents the market preferred level of control from emerging through its many interventions (such as monopoly control of the transportation infrastructure and criminal justice industry).
It's perfectly concievable that stricter prohibitions on drug use and harsher penalties for drunk driving than we observe today could emerge in a libertarian society, depending on the economic incentives and moral preferences of property owners and market participants.
Published: August 14, 2008 4:59 PM
Vedran Vuk
Ok. So some people think the legalization argument is pretty weak. But let's consider for a second, what is the argument against legalization?
Is it based on calculated cost benefits? well no. Is it based on historical precedence of success and historical societies completely destroyed by drugs? No. Is it based on economic principles of supply and demand, the most basic idea in economics? No.
The argument against legalization is completely structured on people's personal opinions about human nature intermixed with a distrust for their neighbors. There's really nothing to the argument. No real substance. An opponent will simply state that drugs are bad and people will go crazy.......and that's it. I mean seriously.
The economics of legalization is completely sound, but how convincing your case depends on how distrustful and stupid your audience feels others human beings are.
Why stop at drugs? The anti-legalization rationale is the same throughout Leftist anti-market sentiments.
If you take people off welfare, they'll go crazy, rob, or starve. If you take people off social security, they won't save; they're completely irrational and never think of the future. There will be deprivation everywhere. If we don't regulate business, they'll poison our products at the lowest costs.
Just like the anti-drug legalization argument, these viewpoints are founded on a biased view of human nature ignoring economics or any evidence presented otherwise. The bias is so strong at that point that its really not about the economics anymore.
If you're against drug-legalization simply based on your gut feeling regarding your neighbor's ability to take care of himself, then why not adopt a couple of those other left leaning policies.
One more thing. The idea that drug addicts are irrational and have no individuality is frightening to say the least. Drug addicts usually devise quite interesting rational schemes to rob you of your money. Further, if people are slaves to drugs with no individuality, then how do they quit? Not to beat a dead horse, but Motley Crue had all the money in the world. Why stop? It's because they chose to do so. It's called Human Action and individual choice.
Published: August 14, 2008 8:17 PM
Peter
A similar issue is allowing the possession of substances such as anthrax, VX, GHB, rohypnol, and ketamine.
I'm sorry...anthrax, VX, GHB, rohypnol and ketamine? Is that like "atomic bombs, Ebola, and chewable aspirin"?
Published: August 14, 2008 8:24 PM
nicholas gray
All governments end up wanting to increase their powers, if only so they can live up to the fancy campaign promises that they made to get elected. An unending war is ideal for those purposes! This was the central premise of '1984'- that external and eternal war makes peace inside societies as everyone constantly rallies around the flag! If the policing agencies temporarily stop drugs, they can claim a 'win', and reap loads of publicity. If they don't stop drugs, then the Government can grab even more powers by claiming they need more to 'win'! The government of the day can claim a 'Win', whatever happens!
Why would governments want to stop such a golden goose, which gives them either publicity or powers? Since these are the two things they really crave, this is a war they can't lose!!!?
Your reasonable article has no hope of stopping such a juggernaut!
Published: August 15, 2008 12:20 AM
Greg Day
Thanks Dick Fox, I couldn't put my finger on it until you mentioned common sense. Even if made legal I still wouldn't get my 7 year old high on cocaine. Why? It's too dangerous!
And the implication that criminals are smart because of how clever they are at stealing fails the common sense test. Criminals are really, really stupid.
Published: August 15, 2008 1:32 AM
nicholas gray
Dick Fox- there is one point not addressed by your article. Who gets to decide what is prohibited? If you say 'Common Sense', muslims think it only common sense to ban all alcoholic drinks. One person's common sense is another person's taboo.
And who get's to enforce this common sense decision? Governments? OR do we leave to parents and adults to decide this?
Published: August 15, 2008 2:35 AM
David Ch
A lot of emotive kneejerking comes out whenever this subject comes up, (mostly I suspect , from people with children below voting age who clearly dont trust their own ability to instil appropriate values in their children through example and counsel, and take comfort from outsourcing this responsibility to the State). I think the strongest, simplest argument for legalisation is simply that in general drugs are far too dangerous to leave in the hands of criminals.
And at a libertarian level, however dangerous drugs might potentially be, who particularly has the right to decree the personal risk/benefit assessment and choice on behalf of another? Current laws are also woefully inconsistent: to wit, alcohol and tobacco are legal, while, say, cannabis is not. Yet the relative risks posed by the latter are manifestly lower than the risks of the former. And the bald fact is that drugs must have SOME benefits - if they didnt, they wouldn't be used by so many people. I find it very strange that many self-described libertarians chuck out all their subjective-choice freedom principles the moment the subject comes up and reach instinctively for outright prohibition. Which in any event does nothing to resolve the problems of abuse and addiction, whose causes lie deeper in the addict's psyche than the mere availability of the drug. Removing access to the heroin addict's supply does nothing to solve the problems that gave rise to the addiction, it merely creates a new set of derivative problems thast redouble the addicts misery, besides destabilising the social environment around him. A well-adjusted individual with no underlying problems has little to fear from drug addiction, and in fact th evast majority of people who try drugs of many types grow out of it fairly quickly and move on with their lives. ( with the possible exception of topbacco, whose addictiveness is extremely powerful, far outclassing heroin).
Drug laws, among all other intrusions of the state into personal choice, are at root predicated on the axiom that people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves.
And this leads to an exquisite logical dilemma for any democratically elected government. A government that imposes restrictive laws calculated to be 'for the peoples' own good' must, by definition, have accepted this axiom.
But having done so, it invalidates its own mandate, for if those same people are too stupid to make their own decisions, it must follow that they were also too stupid to vote intelligently. Hence the democratically elected 'nanny' government's very claim to power is fundamentally illegitimate on its own terms.
And furthermore, if it is axiomatic that people are too stupid to make their own decisions, what qualifies the officials, who are also people, enacting and enforcing choice-elimination laws to make those laws any less stupidly?
I could argue that stupidity at this level is endemic. Coming back to drugs, it is significant that all of the credible scientific research programmes ( and some of the government-sponsored ones) over the last few decades into drugs, effects, social outcomes, and the like, have consistently concluded and recommended that the legislative outlawing of drugs is a very bad idea, and it should be withdrawn . (Granted, few of these were libertarian-inspired, and many propose all sorts of lefty-style 'benevolent' social programs instead). But I am not aware of a single independent research program that has recommended continuance of harsh no-tolerance law enforcement. All favour varying degrees of legalisation, decriminalisation, and some really lefty ones even advocate state supply to registered addicts!
But the point is that governments ( and not only the US, Britain and South Africa are no different) have repeatedly dismissed all these conclusions and recommendations firmly, and without any meaningful counterargument or competing research. It follows that government resistance to any sort of liberalisation of drug laws is not informed by concern for the welfare of citizens. I leave it to the reader to infer what the true motivation is.
Published: August 15, 2008 4:00 AM
Eduardo
I would like to follow on Dick Fox and others reasoning, expressed in:
"No one wants to face a person driving an automobile who is inebriated beyond the point of control. A Libertarian who argues that such a person should be allowed to engage in behavior that could endanger another until that person actually commits a violation against another person or property rightfully should be considered a kook, and loses the debate before it starts."
Following this, I propose two NON KOOKY solutions to problems that arose when people engage in conducts that are dangerous to others, without regard if they actually do harm.
1- For millenia the military have killed, maimed, starved, tortured, raped and abused of innocent people. It is KOOKY to keep the present military armed. Lets DISARM the military NOW.
2- For millenia governments have brought huge calamities on their people and also foreigners. The NON KOOKY solution to this is to ABOLISH all present governments.
This are logic conclusions, don't they? ;-b
Published: August 15, 2008 8:45 AM
Deacon
#######
#######
Critical question:
Are those who speak and
write for legalization speaking
and writing through their own
drug addiction(s)?
Wake up, folks:
Devastating Toll of the Nation's Drug Addiction
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1561831.ece
#######
#######
Published: August 15, 2008 10:19 AM
Deacon
#######
#######
P.S.
So very few know, that drug legalization was
the rule in the 1800s, to the point that women
tired of walking around dopers on sidewalks
and of husbands abandoning wife and family
for the drug houses, which epidemic resulted
in town fathers and women joining to outlaw
drugs and the drug houses that were
disseminating them.
The war against life-wrecking drugs is being
lost because along with the huge expenditure
to combat them is the wink and nod of
approval from Leftism's pro-drug
propaganda machines of Hollywood movies
and TV sitcoms.
Yeah, legalize drug use - once again! - and
watch bad history repeat itself.
TO REITERATE: Legalization was the rule
in the 1800s in the U.S., which failed
horribly because of the damage done to
families, as fathers became addicted in
smoking houses and left wife and familial
responsibilities in pursuit of the pleasure
of staying high. Illegalization began after
women and town fathers grew tired of
stepping over men on the sidewalks and
of abandoned wives and children, which
the community's churches had to try and
clean up. So long as libertarians and
liberals give a wink and a nod to drug use,
through the propaganda powerhouses of
Hollywood movies and TV sitcoms, the
war on drugs shall fail—is T-H-E REASON
why it has failed.
#######
#######
Published: August 15, 2008 10:32 AM
Michael A. Clem
Sorry, Deacon, but the only 'drug' I use regularly is caffeine. I don't smoke, rarely drink, and certainly don't use marijuana, cocaine, or other illegal drugs. I do know a couple of drug addicts, though, if it makes you feel better about my comments. Doesn't it make you think twice to realize that the "devastating toll" of drug addiction (assuming it's been accurately defined and calculated) occurs WHILE these drugs are illegal? Does it not occur to you that drug abuse would actually be easier for society to deal with if these drugs were not illegal? Or to put it another way, how are we helping drug addicts by confiscating their property and throwing them in jail? Especially when it's been shown that the authorities can't even keep the drugs out of jail?
No, either drug addiction is something so strong that a person can't help themselves, and therefore needs medical help, or drug addiction is a personal, voluntary choice, and thus it is wrong to protect people from themselves. Either way, drug prohibition doesn't make sense, and the War on Drugs is a big waste of time, resources, and manpower, distracting law enforcement from protecting people from real crimes, and, for that matter, creating crime where it would not otherwise exist.
Published: August 15, 2008 10:45 AM
Michael A. Clem
Deacon, your second post came through while I was responding to your first. It's a good try, but still doesn't justify prohibition. If legal recreational drugs are an "epidemic", that's just more proof that it should be considered a medical issue, not a criminal issue. And if it's not an 'epidemic', you've yet to show any valid justification for government and law enforcement to protect people from themselves. Naturally, friends, family, neighbors, and other concerned citizens should be free to 'intervene' and try to help addicts, but such intervention is hindered by prohibition, not helped. Perhaps society's efforts would be better spent trying to understand why people turn to drugs in the first place, instead of ruining lives in the name of protecting families.
One other thing you're overlooking: the majority of recreational drug users are not, in fact, addicts or abusers, and manage to hold down responsible jobs and take care of their families. Except when they get busted by the police, that is. If you don't put drug use and abuse into proper perspective, you'll never come to a reasonable solution for drug problems.
Published: August 15, 2008 11:01 AM
newson
i'm surprised that nobody seems to have drawn attention to the immense improvement in recreational drug safety through product standardization and quality control that legalization would bring.
certainly many of the rave-party concoctions are made with scant regard to the consumer's safety, and many accidental deaths result.
at least those with prescription drug addictions are getting a pure, controlled dose, and can be treated if they so desire. lucky rock stars have the money to buy pharmaceutical-grade cocaine, heroine or mdma etc., so it's no wonder many bounce back after years of abuse (keith richards comes to mind).
deacon's comments about widespread family breakdown in the america in the 1800's just don't seem right. after all, america couldn't possibly have entered the 1900's as the preeminent world power if the societal fabric weren't more or less intact. he sounds a little shrill, much like the temperance women of the 1920's (also convinced that alcohol was sending america to hell in a handbasket.)
Published: August 15, 2008 11:18 AM
Vedran Vuk
Deacon,
You must compare your points to what's going on now. No one is arguing that drugs don't ruin families. They do. You won't find disagreement with me on that. But you isolate the deaths created by drug use and ignore the deaths caused by the drug war.
For example, your article article notes 455 people died in Scotland because of drugs. Well here's a statistic from the town I'm most familiar with New Orleans. In 2004, pre-hurricane Katrina New Orleans had 265 murders for a population of half a million. Scotland had 455 drug deaths for a population of 5 million. This isn't something isolated to New Orleans. It's all over the country. And other countries! Should we include the body count for fighting with the FARC in Columbia as well. It's part of the drug war and the gangsterism created by prohibition.
So yeah. People die of drugs but MANY more die from the drug war. Don't analyze statistics in a vacuum.
Let me reiterate one thing:
Deacon said, "Illegalization began after
women and town fathers grew tired of
stepping over men on the sidewalks and
of abandoned wives and children, which
the community's churches had to try and
clean up"
And today Deacon people are tired of having their fathers locked up in iron cages, they're tired of having their sons shot in the streets, and they're tired of their loved ones dieing from impure prohibition created drugs. I'd rather see a man on the street any day over seeing him through prison bars or in a pool of blood on that same pavement.
Published: August 15, 2008 12:27 PM
Deacon
#######
#######
Hi, Vedran:
If this were a racially
homogeneous society
with a high collective
IQ, then legalization
might be a manageable
approach to drug abuse.
It's a question of authority;
that is, either the authority
through external controls
or through self-control.
Generally, high-IQ folks
need far less external
controls than, say, a tribe
with an average collective
IQ of 80.
I had put the problem
this way to Gary North:
How do you, sir, run your family
household as a parent/provider?
Various operations of the family
household are the models for
every form of government, or
lack thereof: Either your children
are family members - citizens,
so to speak - or merely
consumers residing in your
household. Do your children
hold a particular status in relation
to your and your wife's authority?
Do your children view you as a
tyrant by your authority or as a
democratic arbiter, or some
combination? Such must be the
nature of any State--an
expression of some particular
form of family dynamic within
the household, as someone must
be in charge - either autocratically
or democratically - because there
exist inherently bright adults and
dumb adults, inherently bright
children and dumb children.
Ergo, some kind of organization -
some degree of combination of
cooperation and authoritarian
control - is necessary for people
to live in peace in family,
community or nation-state, as
nature has dealt unequal abilities
to adults and children alike. Or
do you decide who is in charge in
your family by the one with the
most money? Does the money
flow in an elitist sort of way, with
you as provider and taxpayer
and, ergo, decision-maker? Or
does it flow willy-nilly for
purposes of maximum
consumption? Is your family a
dictatorship, kingship, democracy,
oligarchy of two, or libertarian
commune? All political affiliations
are understood by examining
family dynamics--by examining
the various psychological
dynamics of how members within
the nuclear family may relate to
one another, according to the
abilities nature has dealt to you
and yours.
In other words, legalization for a
bunch of low-IQ dolts is a very,
very bad idea, as education
would be a useless means to
preventing drug abuse occur-
ing on a massive scale.
Re your point about people who
need medical help being locked
up, well, leftists ought to have
thought about that before they
began their if-it-feels-good-do-it
Sixties revolution against two
millennia of traditional Western
values, which values had
pretty much kept good civil
society in every community
for centuries.
I'm old enough to remember
what civil society was like in
America before Leftism
sacrificed it for do-your-own-
thing liberalism and socialist/
communist welfare programs.
It was a time when we raised
up LADIES and GENTLEMEN,
rather than what our popular
culture raises up today, sadly:
WHORES
and
LECHERS.
#######
#######
Published: August 15, 2008 8:15 PM
newson
i.q. isn't wisdom, besides being a very slippery construct.
Published: August 15, 2008 9:56 PM
Bruce Koerber
A classical liberalism society is one where information flows most rapidly, more than any other system since other systems permit finite human minds to intervene in a world that is far more complex than can be comprehended.
Sure there will be some who make choices that are poor but since information will more quickly reach everyone in a classical liberalism society even the worst case snapshot in time will be far improved over an imposed-morality-through-interventionism snapshot in time.
The current debate is limited because the 'ideal' of a classical liberalism society is itself beyond the comprehension of minds that have been programmed to think objectively! When minds are permitted to think subjectively then the debate will be fully endowed and easily won.
Published: August 17, 2008 5:17 PM
Deacon
#######
#######
In conclusion:
"It is naive to
believe that
legalising
drugs would
reduce crime?" :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/21/drugspolicy.drugstrade
#######
#######
Published: August 20, 2008 6:27 PM
nicholas gray
A commenter recently made this remark, when talking about the US, and I think history has shown how true he was, "America can be free, or drug-free, but not both."
Published: August 20, 2008 9:46 PM
Zeanne
i've always been under the impression that if drugs were legal, then the government wouldn't have the excuse of a "war on drugs" to spend so much money policing our borders...they'd be able to collect more money on tariffs, save money by not having so many non-violent offenders to jail, and the economy would benefit from having more workers available...there are more examples, i'm sure. also, when ppl start talking about legalizing drugs, this doesn't always mean selling these things at the corner drugstore...pun intended...but then those ppl who are hooked could get treatment, the government could tax these products...similar to what they do with alcohol, cigarettes, etc...and researchers could get grants and support to look into these drugs for better, non-addictive products to use for the general public...as it stands, they can't even get permission most times to research these drugs because the drugs are so highly illegal and controlled.
i say, legalize them...control them through laws similar to what is in place for prescription drugs...as for what one comment said about men laying in the streets and women and town officials being tired of having to step around them...isn't that what rehab and community help programs have been developed for?
Published: August 24, 2008 3:55 PM
Kiwi Polemicist
I thought that Vedran's article was well thought out and had compelling logic.
My 2c worth on drug legalisation can be found here:
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/the-pointless-death-of-an-undercover-policeman/
Published: September 11, 2008 5:19 PM
Graham
Sure, for a while the number of drug user may increase. But with that, the money from taxes would increase as well. From my view, people are always going to do drugs; so why not make a little money off the junkies? Look, if you want to do a line or pop some blue and yellow pills that's fine by me. The author does have a good point though about the increase of fiends on the street. I just think that the legalization will crack (no pun intended) down on the number of people in our prison system, thus saving money.
Published: October 26, 2008 11:17 PM