Friday, March 6, 2009
Drugs "A Century of Manifest Failure"
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 5:03 PM
The bomb-throwing, bong-sucking radicals at the Economist call for an end to the war on drugs—legalize all of 'em, tax 'em, regulate 'em, put criminal syndicates out of business, treat addiction as a health problem and not a criminal problem, and stop pretending that "harm-reduction" models—"prohibition-lite"—will solve the problem.
[The fear of legalization] is based in large part on the presumption that more people would take drugs under a legal regime. That presumption may be wrong. There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer. Embarrassed drug warriors blame this on alleged cultural differences, but even in fairly similar countries tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates. Legalisation might reduce both supply (pushers by definition push) and demand (part of that dangerous thrill would go). Nobody knows for certain. But it is hard to argue that sales of any product that is made cheaper, safer and more widely available would fall. Any honest proponent of legalisation would be wise to assume that drug-taking as a whole would rise.There are two main reasons for arguing that prohibition should be scrapped all the same. The first is one of liberal principle. Although some illegal drugs are extremely dangerous to some people, most are not especially harmful. (Tobacco is more addictive than virtually all of them.) Most consumers of illegal drugs, including cocaine and even heroin, take them only occasionally. They do so because they derive enjoyment from them (as they do from whisky or a Marlboro Light). It is not the state’s job to stop them from doing so.
Read the whole thing. Thanks to Slog tipper Justin.
Share via
2
Just for the record, this is a strict libertarian argument and not that distant from from The Economist's generally "less government" views. It's an interesting point and probably practical. However, it's still no fun to watch that minority of users that get addicted harm themselves.
3
I think Yglesias is basically right (I can't find his original, more compelling post). If you're going to legalize pot, you should make it legal to grow in small amounts and smoke, but not to sell. That way everyone gets to use it who wants to, and realistically small amounts get bought and sold, but it is not a mega-business with lobbyists and advertising (if you think you can regulate advertising, see point about lobbyists).
Maybe you think pot is harmless enough that it would be okay for there to be a pot lobby. Maybe you don't think the alcohol lobby/advertisers are irresponsible or harmful. But do you want there to be a cocaine lobby? A heroin lobby?
Maybe you think pot is harmless enough that it would be okay for there to be a pot lobby. Maybe you don't think the alcohol lobby/advertisers are irresponsible or harmful. But do you want there to be a cocaine lobby? A heroin lobby?
4
The whole Drug War on pot was dreamed up literally as a way to keep the anti-alcohol cops and prison industries operating after Prohibition ended.
And it has been just as much of a disaster as Prohibition was.
When it ended in Canada (pot not prohibition - they never did that) ... nothing happened.
Except crime went DOWN.
And it has been just as much of a disaster as Prohibition was.
When it ended in Canada (pot not prohibition - they never did that) ... nothing happened.
Except crime went DOWN.
5
Ayup there's a whole industry and lots of money in fighting drugs. Cop budgets, prison guards, prosecutors, even community grant programs like DARE.
A huge wasteful bureaucracy that expands and undercuts the values it ostensibly serves.
Gee why can't we appropriate GOP critiques when they're right?
Ditto as to the DOD.
And the death penalty support industry.
Wasteful govt. programs that foster dependency of immense hordes of state employees and hangers on like defense lawyers on public contract.
We just can't afford this crap any more.
A huge wasteful bureaucracy that expands and undercuts the values it ostensibly serves.
Gee why can't we appropriate GOP critiques when they're right?
Ditto as to the DOD.
And the death penalty support industry.
Wasteful govt. programs that foster dependency of immense hordes of state employees and hangers on like defense lawyers on public contract.
We just can't afford this crap any more.
6
#3, there are already pot lobbies like NORML, but it's difficult to see how any pot lobby could be worse than the major opponent of pot legalization, the fucking prison guards lobby.
7
One thing the Roman Empire did right was to reconize there were things that people enjoyed doing, would do no matter how much money you threw at stopping them, so just let them do those things and spend money on more important things that could make an actual difference. In the meantime, the poor countries south of our border could stop warring with themselves as well. We need to get serious about our problems or the great American experiment is doomed. And we're in serious trouble people.
8
#4 - Will, marijuana isn't "legal" in any province in Canada, though some provinces consider it a minor offense, and some police departments aren't terribly concerned with possession charges for small amounts.
And you best believe our neighbors to the north had their own temperance movement, the first province went dry at the turn of the century (until 1948!!!), the rest by 1915. What you're probably confused about is that some Canadian distilleries stayed open for export only, which was a huge boost to their economy.
Anyhow, legalize the shit already. Tax it and regulate it just like alcohol. Let the ATF worry about enforcement, and stop sending non-violent offenders to jail for possession.
And you best believe our neighbors to the north had their own temperance movement, the first province went dry at the turn of the century (until 1948!!!), the rest by 1915. What you're probably confused about is that some Canadian distilleries stayed open for export only, which was a huge boost to their economy.
Anyhow, legalize the shit already. Tax it and regulate it just like alcohol. Let the ATF worry about enforcement, and stop sending non-violent offenders to jail for possession.
11
Legalize it, let tobacco farmers grow it [instead of their tobacco crop], and tax the Hell out of it. Set the law so that you have to be over 18 to indulge, you can't drive while using and so on [actually current laws cover most of this, but let's throw the Right Wing a bone].
Let the tobacco companies have the exclusive rights to sell marijuana if they agree to stop selling tobacco.
How much does it actually cost to make a pack of cigarettes? Maybe $2.00 after all the profits are figured in? That's 10 cents per cigarette. Let's say it costs twice as much to make a marijuanna cigarette - a box of five joints would cost $1.00 [do you really want people to have 20 joints at a time?] Let the tobacco companies charge $2 per box and throw am $8 tax on top of that. I'd pay $10 for a legal chance to get high. Hell, I'd pay $15 if it was good stuff.
They'd make even more money than the whole "War on Drugs" costs.
Let the tobacco companies have the exclusive rights to sell marijuana if they agree to stop selling tobacco.
How much does it actually cost to make a pack of cigarettes? Maybe $2.00 after all the profits are figured in? That's 10 cents per cigarette. Let's say it costs twice as much to make a marijuanna cigarette - a box of five joints would cost $1.00 [do you really want people to have 20 joints at a time?] Let the tobacco companies charge $2 per box and throw am $8 tax on top of that. I'd pay $10 for a legal chance to get high. Hell, I'd pay $15 if it was good stuff.
They'd make even more money than the whole "War on Drugs" costs.
12
@8 - picky picky picky.
It's illegal to drive while talking on your cell phone, but I see lots of people do that too and they're not being jailed.
SAME NET EFFECT.
Now, go get a life.
It's illegal to drive while talking on your cell phone, but I see lots of people do that too and they're not being jailed.
SAME NET EFFECT.
Now, go get a life.
14
@4 & 7 Canada did not legalize pot, it was de-criminalized for possession of small amounts. there is a big difference but the end result is the same, citizens are not being thrown in jail and getting busted for a couple of joints, and no police department in the nation would give a crap over Phelps and his bong. however trafficking and production is still quite illegal, grow-ops are popping up all over and getting busted big time ie. jail time and property siezure.
If the SEC, DA, Police, or Washington investigated corporate america with the same zest and zeal reserved for the "War on Drugs" and filled the prison system with Wall St raiders committing real crimes instead of jamming the system with minor drug offensives maybe your economy wouldn't be so badly in the toilet, and dragging the rest of us down with you.
If the SEC, DA, Police, or Washington investigated corporate america with the same zest and zeal reserved for the "War on Drugs" and filled the prison system with Wall St raiders committing real crimes instead of jamming the system with minor drug offensives maybe your economy wouldn't be so badly in the toilet, and dragging the rest of us down with you.
16
Seriously, whether hard drugs are legal or not, about 1% of the population will be addicted to them. Better to treat those addicts than to criminalize them, so yes: legalize heroin and cocaine, break up the international criminal drug cartels, and let legitimate businesses and governments make boatloads of money.
The entire population of South America will thank us, to say nothing of the progress we would make in Afghanistan.
The entire population of South America will thank us, to say nothing of the progress we would make in Afghanistan.
17
The Economist has held this position for years and years. I was raised on The Economist bitches. And that is why I have always taken my drugs guilt free. Thank you The Economist, I hope some day people start listening to you.
18
The whole point of the War on Drugs isn't to stop people from taking drugs.
As others above have noted, it's become a self-propagating bureaucracy whose purpose is to keep our nation in a permanent state of hyper-militarized hysteria.
With the media loudly screeching that there's a drug dealer and a sex offender under every bed, people will never realize how badly they're being fucked over by corporate America and their puppets in the gummit.
As others above have noted, it's become a self-propagating bureaucracy whose purpose is to keep our nation in a permanent state of hyper-militarized hysteria.
With the media loudly screeching that there's a drug dealer and a sex offender under every bed, people will never realize how badly they're being fucked over by corporate America and their puppets in the gummit.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Seattle's Crappiest Bus Route by Unpaid Intern
-
Your Daily Douchebag by Dominic Holden
-
How Many Ballots Are Left to Count? by Eli Sanders
-
The Procession for Officer Brenton by Dominic Holden
-
Cyclist Hits Pedestrian by Dan Savage
-
What She Said by Dan Savage
-
What He Said 2 by Dan Savage
-
The Morning News by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: She Needs Oral by Dan Savage
-
The World Series of Baseball by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (18) RSS