The War On Drugs

I'm excited to write this post, because it is a direct response to a reader comment. If anyone has a request for something to write about, please post it.

I was asked what my position was on the War On Drugs and on legalization of drugs. They are separate, if related, topics, and I will address them individually.

The War On Drugs is an absolute failure that was ill-advised from the beginning. The effects of this war have been a large amount of money wasted, a creation of a violent industry that has killed thousands, and a trampling of the constitution. It has cost nearly $45 Billion this year so far alone. Total cost is in the hundreds of billions. The worst of it is, it simply doesn't work. Those who want drugs can get them. The real result has been a large amount of money wasted on allocated law enforcement, prisons and other enforcement. The other result has been that law enforcement has become extremely intrusive and rights are being trampled.

The root of all this is simple. People want drugs. Period. When people want something, and that something becomes more difficult to obtain, they are willing to pay a higher price for it. The profit is the price of breaking the law. This makes breaking the law very profitable. When there are a lot of profits to be made, there is a lot of competition. When competition cannot be regulated through the courts, the only recourse is violence. Hence, making drugs more difficult to obtain leads to violence.

If there were plenty of drugs to go around, there would be no extreme profit, and thus no need to resort to violence. So by not artificially manipulating the market, we can reduce drug violence significantly. Besides, it's not as though it's impacting the availability of drugs. I've never seen a case of someone stopping their drug addiction because there were no more drugs available. Because people want them, they will always be drugs. There are drugs in prison for crying out loud!

Let us look at the other cost as well. Civil liberties have been greatly eroded under the guise of the War On Drugs. We now have police units armed to the teeth, ready to kick down any door based on the smallest tip. We have mayors of small towns being attacked by police, dogs shot, people handcuffed for hours, and all on virtually no evidence. The protections against search and seizure are all but nonexistent. No-knock warrants are being handed out on the slightest suspicion, and any resistance is met with lethal force. Police forces are using the absurd seizure laws to target property they want, and using the slightest justification to seize it with no due process or compensation. These departments are just like any other drug gang, except they are sanctioned by the corrupt legislature and courts. All this to keep people from doing things that the President-Elect has admitted doing and the sitting president is strongly suspected of doing.

The typical (liberal) response is that drugs make for dangerous situations. Well, so do matches and gasoline, yet anyone can buy those. Any police officer will tell you a drunk is every bit as dangerous as someone on drugs. The point is that the government is not supposed to be your mother, keeping you from things that might have the potential for trouble. The government is supposed to keep you from infringing on another's rights. I'm all for throwing the book at those who commit crimes while high. If we ended the War On Drugs, we might have a place to put them. But we have no right to arrest someone for doing something that might be dangerous. Until they infringe on someone's rights, or are imminently about to, they have the right to choose what they want to do. If they want to get high and sit around, it's their right. It's a waste of resources to stop it.

As far as my opinion on legalization, it's simple. Any adult (eligible for the military) should be allowed to use whatever substance to get high that they want to. Children should need the consent of their parents. Quite simply, it is not the government's place to tell you how to run your life. The line is simple. If you are going to infringe on another's rights, it's a crime. If not, it's your right. If you get high and drive recklessly, that's a crime. If you get high and mind your own business, that's your right.

Let's look at the benefits of legalization:

1. Puts drug cartels out of business.
2. Virtually eliminates accidental drug overdoses. Right now, there is no way to tell how much of the active ingredient is in a bag of drugs. There are no labeling laws. Legalize and regulate, and viola, you know exactly how much your taking.
3. Eliminate adulteration of drugs. Many of the worst effects of drugs come from cutting agents and other drugs mixed in with the named drug.
4. Allow those who use drugs responsibly to have more productive lives.
5. By reducing the price of drugs, the need to commit immoral acts to afford drugs is reduced.

This is a short list, and does not contain all of the benefits of just ending the over enforcement of drug laws.

The other question is, why should the government ban drugs? Because they might be harmful? Does that mean the government should ban junk food, tv, not working out, video games, all of which lead indirectly to more deaths than drugs do, or whatever your favorite vice is?

The idea that the government should be an all-powerful nanny, forbidding you to do whatever might be dangerous is a liberal one. It has been shamefully usurped by "conservatives". It is not the government's job, nor is it in any way constitution for the government to regulate such things.

The original prohibition didn't work. This one doesn't either.