Asymmetrical Information

You need to spellcheck that quote. It's riddled with errors.

Generally speaking, people will follow a higher power - any higher power - that offers them security. Exceptions are rare. Thus, people are susceptible to government. Given that government is in our nature, the best approach to government is to join it.

This is truly scary stuff - should have saved it for next Halloween.

My cousin's husband, the Irish family's NYPD lieutenant, tells me the NYPD's method of getting armed robbers and murderers off the streets is to arrest and convict them on drug charges. I haven't read this book, but if it doesn't figure this in to its analysis, I'd skip it.

Some of those points are valid, some are over simplistic, and some are flat out poo.

But, for the sake of debate, I'll concede all those points. Let's say they are all absolute truth.

What's your plan? You got a better idea? I'd love to hear it! I've heard variations of this argument about 1,000 times but when I ask how they'd fix it, I can't find a soul who has anything past the incredibly thought out, "Legalize it."

And don't get me started on the whole, "We'd make trillions in taxes alone!" No, you wouldn't.

The fact is the "War on Drugs" and the way we are "fighting" it would be laughable if the consequences weren't so serious. The one thing I do agree with is that there has to be a better way.

So, what is it?

Actually, not everyone simply says "legalize it." Some of us say "decriminalize it" which is not the same thing. In particular, I have advocated moderation education; the anti-drug campaigns which depict the typical user as a swacked-out loser are providing a role model far more destructive than if people like myself who unwind after a successful day of work with a few tokes were part of the percieved culture.

Reagan Fan,

What's the solution? Just stop worrying about it.

Take the drug laws off the books and then enforce the laws that remain. Drive under the influence - go to jail. Steal to support your habit - go to jail. Allow employers to do periodic drug testing.

The idea of making drugs illegal is, I believe, to try to turn non-productive citizens into productive citizens. But the reason these people are doing drugs is because they don't have anything better to do. They aren't productive to start with, and now they're criminals as well. So just stop worrying about them.

The problem isn't drugs. The problem is nannyism. That's what we need a war on. Nannies.

Today, primarily as a result of these laws, the prison population of the United States has more than doubled since the mid-1980s, and nearly quadrupled since 1975. More than half of all federal prisoners now incarcerated are serving drug-related sentences; the average leength of these sentences is by far the longest in the developed world.

I tend to be sympathetic to arguments for relegalizing drugs (just as we ended prohibition of alcohol when that policy didn’t work) but I have a tough time believing these claims. Does anyone have a link to data to substantiate the author’s claim that the increase in incarceration has primarily been driven by the War on Some Drugs?

I don’t doubt that we are imprisoning more people because of the drug war, I just find it hard to believe it’s nearly as great as the author claims. Moreover I think j mct makes a fair point:

My cousin's husband, the Irish family's NYPD lieutenant, tells me the NYPD's method of getting armed robbers and murderers off the streets is to arrest and convict them on drug charges.

A lot of the proponents of relegalization are careful to say that they would free non-violent drug offenders. I’m curious how many of those being imprisoned would qualify as non-violent drug offenders – as opposed to those who have other charges on their raps sheets and were prosecuted for drug-related offenses because it was the best way to keep a robber, rapist, burglar, killer, thief, etc. off the street for the longest period of time.

Moreover, what about those who were convicted for selling illegal drugs to minors? It seems to me that it’s one thing to say that adults should be able to ingest whatever substances into their bodies they like but a lot people who agree with that would draw the line at children. How many “non-violent offenders” are there because they were selling to kids such as dealers in a school? Even those of us who cringe at the thought of a guy smoking pot in the privacy of his own home and doing no harm to anyone else being prosecuted as the ideal poster child for the “non-violent offender” have to realize that a good chunk (probably most) of the “non-violent offenders” are probably the ones dealing this garbage to kids.

Paul Campos, not Peter.

The Movie "Traffic" was right on point.

"... the NYPD's method of getting armed robbers and murderers off the streets is to arrest and convict them on drug charges."

I've heard that same argument several times from my friends in law enforcement, but it would seem more logical to get the armed robbers and murderers off the streets by arresting and convicting them of robbery and murder. However, IIRC, the original impetus behind many of our drug laws was to get the uppity blacks and mexicans off the streets post-Jim Crow, when uppity was no longer a crime. Thus, the tradition of using drug laws for purposes other than controlling drugs is certainly time-honored. Whether that is a good thing is another question. If the goal is giving the police the tools they need, why not just pass a law against being 'an enemy of the state', with the police left to decide what constitutes an 'enemy'? We can trust them with that power, can't we?

As for the argument that legalizing/decriminalizing drugs would lead to even higher rates of crime as even more drug users go on crime sprees to support their habits: Well, we see a lot of that now with your average Joe stealing cars to get his sixpack .. don't we?

But, you say, they'll sell drugs to children! Sure they will, and then we can prosecute them for selling drugs to children just like we prosecute people for selling beer and cigarettes to children.

"But, but, but! Drug users become unproductive citizens and a burden on the state!" Well, you've got me there. I have to admit that I've never met anyone who had ever used drugs, who was still a productive citizen. [/sarcasm]

Boy Swen Swenson sure showed that strawman a thing or two.

Nice touch with the unsubstantiated Jim Crow smear too.

I generally favor decriminalizing drugs, but for the last few years my brother has been hooked on meth, and I've never seen anything like it. It doesn't just make you act like an addict, it turns you into a stark raving mainac. In fact, my sister and I are seriously afraid that he might end up killing my parents. Not because he wants their money to feed his habit (and in any case meth is actually quite cheap), but because he thinks they're demons sent to torment him by Satan. What is the proper societal reponse to a substance that doesn't just turn its consumers into addicts, but predictably and irrevocably makes them flat-out nuts?

I'm not sure whether I think drugs should be decriminalized.

However, just because you are failing in an fight (e.g the drug war) does not mean it should not be fought in the first place.

Anonymouse, what drug is Pat Robertson on?

Okay: racism and drug laws, more than you ever wanted to know, some good, some bad, some indifferent. It's been a long time since I researched the topic, and then it was at a university library, not over the internet. At the least I'm not the only one who thinks there's something to this:

"Our War on Drugs was born of the unholy marriage of racism and Puritanism, as scared nativists passed laws to protect white women and children from pot-smoking Mexicans, coke-crazed African-Americans and opium-addled Chinese."

Sorry, I forgot the Chinese angle. For even more fun, add "coke-crazed" to the Google search. Let me know if you want more substantiation.

Anonymous: I've got to admit that meth is a poser, I've never seen anything like it to make people starve their children and steal from their friends. I'm truly sorry for your situation.

Anonymous,

Re; "What is the proper societal reponse to a substance that doesn't just turn its consumers into addicts, but predictably and irrevocably makes them flat-out nuts?"

Good question. But I think the answer is, the same thing we would do with anyone who is flat-out nuts. Treat them if possible. Imprison them if necessary.

I don't see drugs as a social problem. I see them as a personal problem, and often a family problem. The only social problem is the criminal activity that often follows drug use. But there are already laws on the books against this.

Is it better to treat the cause or the symptoms of this disease? I think the answer is both. But I think it is up to individuals and families to treat the cause. Society's role is to treat the symptoms. Society steps in if and only if the family fails.

"A lot of the proponents of relegalization are careful to say that they would free non-violent drug offenders. I’m curious how many of those being imprisoned would qualify as non-violent drug offenders – as opposed to those who have other charges on their raps sheets and were prosecuted for drug-related offenses because it was the best way to keep a robber, rapist, burglar, killer, thief, etc. off the street for the longest period of time. "

And yet another absurdity from our drug warriors. If the best way to keep a robber, rapist, burglar, killer, theif, etc. off the street for the longest period of time is to convict him of drug offenses, that seems like a good sign that the sentencing for drug offenses is too fricking high compared to the sentencing for rape, robbery, and murder. Stop putting away drug "offenders" and it'll be easier to raise the penalty for real crimes to their proper level.

"What's your plan? You got a better idea? I'd love to hear it! I've heard variations of this argument about 1,000 times but when I ask how they'd fix it, I can't find a soul who has anything past the incredibly thought out, "Legalize it." "

Just because a plan is simple doesn't mean it isn't thought out. "When you're in a hole, stop digging" is a good idea whether or not the problems that you weren't solving by digging still exist when you come out of the hole.

The comment that the drug war has been almost a complete failure is ridiculous. The criminilization of drugs has kept a certain number of people off of drugs. Whether the cost to society that he goes on to cite is worth keeping that number of people off of drugs is debatable. To pretend that drug prohibition has all costs and no benefits seems to be a common one among legalizers but it is obviously not true. I would be more likely to be convinced if the legalizers look at both sides of the issues. Criminilization of drugs has well documented costs but the costs of millions of additional addicts are real too.

I hope your last line is a reference to Back to School when Thornton Melon (Rodney Dangerfield) says of Professor Terguson (Sam Kinison) in response to Terguson’s Vietnam tirade, "Nice guy. Really seems to care. About what I have no idea.”

Sourcreamus, can you identify anyone who doesn't use drugs specifically because they are illegal? I've been trying to find them for a long time, and have yet to find anyone who said they would start if the laws changed. I'm sure they are out there, but mostly in the realms of medical use of marijuana and psychiatric use of psychedelics.

As for racism and the drug war, it is noteworty that the quoted speech mentioned "cracking down on illegal drug use" but said nothing at all about "powder cocaining down on illegal drug use" since crack is seen as a ghetto drug and bouncing powder more of an elite drug.

The comment that the drug war has been almost a complete failure is ridiculous. The criminilization of drugs has kept a certain number of people off of drugs. Whether the cost to society that he goes on to cite is worth keeping that number of people off of drugs is debatable. To pretend that drug prohibition has all costs and no benefits seems to be a common one among legalizers but it is obviously not true. I would be more likely to be convinced if the legalizers look at both sides of the issues. Criminilization of drugs has well documented costs but the costs of millions of additional addicts are real too.

Which is one reason I raised the problem earlier with the issue of violent drug offenders (those that have committed murder, robbery, etc.) who are in prison longer in part because of the WOSD as well as “non-violent” drug offenders who are dealing to minors which most of us agree can and should remain illegal.

Others have raised legitimate concerns that if you decriminalize/relegalize drugs as we did alcohol, you’re going to run the risk of increased usage and the problems associated with its use and abuse. Some may not find these concerns (as they fall within the realm of people making personal choices about their own body unless and until they infringe on the rights of others) dispositive, but I tend to think that that is a minority opinion and most people want the government to try to stop this sort of destructive (personal) behavior because it carries all sorts of negative externalities for families and society in general.

IMO, we’re going to be stuck with the WOSD until those of us who favor alterative public policies such as decriminalization/relegalization are able to address these concerns in a way persuasive to the majority of citizens who aren’t libertarians.

Someone can correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty certain that the phrase “cracking down” was in popular usage long before the advent of crack cocaine.

Moreover I’m not so sure that I’d want to sign on an argument that says “policy X is racist because it has a disparate impact on this group” because that sort of argument carries implications far beyond the WOSD.

Yesterday, a friend's daughter and her boyfriend stole one of the family cars, totalled it some distance from home and are now hitch-hiking somewhere in the deep South. They are dopers whose judgment is materially impaired, including their ability to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. If their only shortcoming was sleeping late, watching cartoons and not working, that would be one thing. It is a fact, proved tragically over and over again, that much of our violent crime has its roots in drugs and alcohol. This is in addition to those who, like my friend's daughter, simply steal. I have no idea which component, alcohol or drugs, plays the greater role in producing or exacerbating deviant and criminal characteristics, but adding one more to the mix doesn't seem useful. Then, there is the dependency angle. Addicts, in addition to being non-productive, can be induced into a whole range of unhealthy and illegal behaviors in order to feed their habit. Drug dependency creates a class of prey all its own.

It is one thing to argue for medical marijuana or that growing weed for one's own use ought to be allowed. I'd probably sign on to that if it was coupled with mandatory jail time for injury or death caused by driving while under the influence.

The other stuff isn't benign or simply a matter of personal choice that does not affect others and is therefore none of their business.

Finally, once the genie is out of the bottle, it is out for good. Proponents of legalization, like Bush in Iraq, near a clearly defined plan for dealing with the fallout from their proposal.

Mckinney: "They are dopers whose judgment is materially impaired, including their ability to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law." It sure sounds like their inability to conform to the law started before they illegally started taking dope. Drug addiction is generally a symptom of some underlying mental problem, not the cause.

Markm: can't tell you which one came first, although using drugs today is illegal, so it follows that these two dopers had some pre-existing disinclination to follow the law. My point is, I think, difficult to refute: people who, by taking drugs, alter their consciousness, impair their judgment, loosen their restraints and nullify checks on their inhibitions--all of these are produced by drug use--are less able to comply with the law than otherwise. It is all well and good to say the crime produced by the drug use should be penalized, not the use itself, but I suspect the victim and the victim's family would feel otherwise. I am curious, what desirable social end is produced by legalizing drug use that outweighs the inevitable higher rate of crime against persons and property produced by having legalized drug use?

mckinneytexas: "... although using drugs today is illegal ..."

[Sighs and pops the top on another Schlitz]

Actually, I for one would probably smoke a little more pot if it was legal. I'm old and respectable enough these days that the trouble of finding a source isn't worth it.

You have to ask yourself why in the face of such draconian laws do people take mind altering drugs?

Perhaps they take them for the same reason doctors prescribe them.

Maybe the drug war is more about rent seeking by big pharma than anything else.

mckinneytexas makes an excellent case for alcohol prohibition. Even the DEA acknowledges that alcohol is the biggest problem drug by far.

Why are we attacking the small problem and letting the biggest one fester? I blame it on the alcohol lobby. Money is obviously corrupting politics.

================

Tobacco is an anti-depressant.

That is a clue.

Thorley Winston,

How about a substantiated Jim Crow smear?

While we're pickin' on poor Thorley, that "strawman" crack still chaps my butt. Three of the four arguments I ridiculed were already set up when I arrived on the scene. If they were knocked down that easily it certainly wasn't because I set them up as strawmen. More likely it's because they're weak arguments.

M.Simon writes:

"mckinneytexas makes an excellent case for alcohol prohibition."

Surprisingly, I've heard this before. Conceding that excessive alcohol intake lowers inhibitions, impairs judgment and produces excess levels of crime, does not diminish the anti-legalization argument, rather it enforces it. First, drugs are not used in moderation or to compliment a meal. Second, not all alcohol consumption is abusive and most alcohol excess results in relatively mild degrees of social deviation: stupid arguments, unintended sexual encounters. At the extreme are auto fatalities, domestic violence, etc. The latter has a variety of underlying pathologies. Adding drugs to the mix won't make things better.

So, the comparison, while in the same universe, misses the mark considerably. And, the question I asked earlier remains unanswered, "what desirable social end is produced by legalizing drug use that outweighs the inevitable higher rate of crime against persons and property produced by having legalized drug use?"

It's a fair question.

Comments are Closed.