Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Ending the War We're Losing
Like most former prosecutors, who felt every drug prosecution took time and effort from punishing real crime, I'm not happy about the War on Drugs. Neither is John Stossel whose column today, at TownHall.com, makes sense beginning to end. Money quotes:
...some of the unintended consequences of drug prohibition:
1. More crime. Rarely do people get high and then run out to commit crimes. Most "drug crime" happens because the product is illegal. Since drug sellers can't rely on the police to protect their property, they form gangs and arm themselves. Drug buyers steal to pay the high black market prices. The government says alcohol is as addictive as heroin, but no one is knocking over 7-Elevens to get Budweiser.
2. More terrorism. The profits of the drug trade fund terrorists from Afghanistan to Colombia. Our herbicide-spraying planes teach South American farmers to hate America.
3. Richer criminal gangs. Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone. The gangs drug prohibition is creating are even richer, probably rich enough to buy nuclear weapons. Osama bin Laden was funded partly by drug money.
Government's declaring drugs illegal doesn't mean people can't get them. It just creates a black market, where even nastier things happen. That's why I have come to think that although drug addiction is bad, the drug war is worse.
But unlike Stossel, who just kvetches about what is happening now, I have thought of a solution. Ready?
Keep the drug laws as they are, but set up government stores in skid row or 'bottom of the decline' industrial areas in every major city, where any adult can legally purchase any drug at a reasonable price just above the cost to produce it. The only catch is that the drug purchaser has to use the drug then and there. Then use the profits from the sales in the government stores to fund addiction treatment centers, in the nice part of town. This won't completely stop drug addiction, because of youth use and some people won't want to use drugs in the spartan drug store, but it will reduce such illegal drug use to a more manageable size.
...some of the unintended consequences of drug prohibition:
1. More crime. Rarely do people get high and then run out to commit crimes. Most "drug crime" happens because the product is illegal. Since drug sellers can't rely on the police to protect their property, they form gangs and arm themselves. Drug buyers steal to pay the high black market prices. The government says alcohol is as addictive as heroin, but no one is knocking over 7-Elevens to get Budweiser.
2. More terrorism. The profits of the drug trade fund terrorists from Afghanistan to Colombia. Our herbicide-spraying planes teach South American farmers to hate America.
3. Richer criminal gangs. Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone. The gangs drug prohibition is creating are even richer, probably rich enough to buy nuclear weapons. Osama bin Laden was funded partly by drug money.
Government's declaring drugs illegal doesn't mean people can't get them. It just creates a black market, where even nastier things happen. That's why I have come to think that although drug addiction is bad, the drug war is worse.
But unlike Stossel, who just kvetches about what is happening now, I have thought of a solution. Ready?
Keep the drug laws as they are, but set up government stores in skid row or 'bottom of the decline' industrial areas in every major city, where any adult can legally purchase any drug at a reasonable price just above the cost to produce it. The only catch is that the drug purchaser has to use the drug then and there. Then use the profits from the sales in the government stores to fund addiction treatment centers, in the nice part of town. This won't completely stop drug addiction, because of youth use and some people won't want to use drugs in the spartan drug store, but it will reduce such illegal drug use to a more manageable size.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:30 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Nancy would be so disappointed.
I've always been in favor of legalizing drugs, for just the reasons mentioned. They could start with pot which would turn millions of "criminals" into good taxpayers overnight.
I lived through the military raids up in Humboldt under Bush Sr. which were absolutely horrific. Guys in black suits and machine guns scaring the hell out of all the campers. All in the name of pulling up a few plants being grown on Federal land. What a waste. (Funny side note, there were rumors going around that we had been invaded by the Russians. Even local law enforcement was unaware of the operation, and no one had a clue what was going on).
Anyway, about your solution, I think it falls a bit short. First of all, what about small town druggies? Second, no one wants to consume on the spot (except for the real junkies). Do you have some building for them to hang out in or do they just nod off on the street? Did you ever see needle park in Denmark (or was it sweeden)? Total disaster. If you make all the junkies hang out in one place, you end up with a Dead concert gone all wrong. What about yuppy coke sniffers?
In short, this does little to get rid of the black market, which is the real problem we are trying to solve. Recreational users will always want their drugs "to go". This in itself, will keep the black market alive.
I like the treatment center idea though. Any legalization process should include taxation of the drug, and those funds should be largely earmarked for rehabilitation and anti-drug education (education mind you, not the PDFA scare tactics we see on TV).
In the end, you just have to decide if they will be legal or not. There is very little middle ground to be had.
You know, Clinton let a lot slide, (i.e. buyers clubs in CA) but since Bush took office, there has been a major crack-down. They are even going after a Canadian guy who runs a seed shop.
Don't we have better things to worry about?
I've always been in favor of legalizing drugs, for just the reasons mentioned. They could start with pot which would turn millions of "criminals" into good taxpayers overnight.
I lived through the military raids up in Humboldt under Bush Sr. which were absolutely horrific. Guys in black suits and machine guns scaring the hell out of all the campers. All in the name of pulling up a few plants being grown on Federal land. What a waste. (Funny side note, there were rumors going around that we had been invaded by the Russians. Even local law enforcement was unaware of the operation, and no one had a clue what was going on).
Anyway, about your solution, I think it falls a bit short. First of all, what about small town druggies? Second, no one wants to consume on the spot (except for the real junkies). Do you have some building for them to hang out in or do they just nod off on the street? Did you ever see needle park in Denmark (or was it sweeden)? Total disaster. If you make all the junkies hang out in one place, you end up with a Dead concert gone all wrong. What about yuppy coke sniffers?
In short, this does little to get rid of the black market, which is the real problem we are trying to solve. Recreational users will always want their drugs "to go". This in itself, will keep the black market alive.
I like the treatment center idea though. Any legalization process should include taxation of the drug, and those funds should be largely earmarked for rehabilitation and anti-drug education (education mind you, not the PDFA scare tactics we see on TV).
In the end, you just have to decide if they will be legal or not. There is very little middle ground to be had.
You know, Clinton let a lot slide, (i.e. buyers clubs in CA) but since Bush took office, there has been a major crack-down. They are even going after a Canadian guy who runs a seed shop.
Don't we have better things to worry about?
Mike makes some very good points and I'd thought of some of them. OK, the guys who want to get their drugs for later, have to register and from time to time give blood samples (All in an effort to stop resale to children really). I'd leave raves and coffee houses and whatever near the drug store for entrepeneurs and the reason for the placement of the stores in the bad part of town is because the bad dead concert that will be nonstop will be out of sight mainly and won't effect property values. Thanks for the input. I don't know what to do with meth users. I was concentrating on heroin, cocaine and the designer party drugs. Meth would be a challenge.
Meth is even worse over here. The make what is called Pervatin out of OTC cold medications.
According to the youth, it is the only known cure for boredom.
According to the youth, it is the only known cure for boredom.
I'm afraid that I fall into the "call it a bad idea and legalize it" camp. Yes, there will be negative externalities (for those who think I'm whitewashing, that means dead children, among other things), but there are substantial negative externalities right now.
This modern form of prohibition hasn't worked any better than the last form we tried, and, because of its duration, it's arguably been worse, net.
For example, how many no-knock raids would there need to be absent the need to get to drugs before they can can be destroyed? I think that the available evidence shows that such raids are particularly ripe for abuses of corruption and zeal. Eliminating the vast majority of them would be a huge benefit to our society.
Post a Comment
This modern form of prohibition hasn't worked any better than the last form we tried, and, because of its duration, it's arguably been worse, net.
For example, how many no-knock raids would there need to be absent the need to get to drugs before they can can be destroyed? I think that the available evidence shows that such raids are particularly ripe for abuses of corruption and zeal. Eliminating the vast majority of them would be a huge benefit to our society.
<< Home
