What would be the consequences of legalizing drugs – all drugs - for adult use? For example, how could the devastation from drugs be any worse than it is right now? Some time back I came out for legalizing drugs for adults, while placing onerous penalties on drug trafficking to children. The pool of voices for legalization is starting to increase, albeit very slowly. Now John Stossel supports the cessation of the war on drugs.
I can think of no consequences of legalizing drugs for adults that are worse than the known consequences of the illegalization of drugs. In fact, the availability of drugs to children cannot get much worse than it is now. Enforcement of the war on supply will never succeed as long as there is a huge demand. Eliminating one source will only create opportunities for other sources. Demand will always create supply, legal or not.
The benefits of legalization of drugs for adults are obvious. The bloody Mexican turf wars would stop. The Afghan poppy fields would have to change over to truck crops. Governments of current supply states would stabilize. Corporate suppliers would benefit. Quality would be more stable. Law enforcement by paramilitary tactic would be less prevalent. More funding could be applied to rehabilitation and to border control.
Importantly, prisons would empty themselves. As Stossel points out, ” Drug laws cause drug crime.”
Secondary benefits might include the total elimination of the FDA and the ATF, in favor of sealing the borders and controlling the goods crossing them.
Whether these things happen is debatable. It seems more likely that one will be allowed to marry a pet monkey… or an entire community. It is true that drugs, like alcohol, destroy. But so does the war on drugs. The destruction wrought by legalization seems less severe, even to some extent controllable. Much more controllable than drug “mules” carrying AK47’s into Arizona to protect their supply headed for the American demand.
It is time to stop the war.
9 comments:
Good. Now if only we could get you on board with legalizing prostitution as well...
Say we do a hard reset on the legal system and start over with no laws. Is there no behavior too vile to accept?
We already accept alcohol, porn, gambling, fetus chopping, public sex with whatever's handy (in SF anyway), and politicians. Is there no such thing as a financial crime between consenting adults? Or spousal abuse between consenting adults? Or indentured servitude bca? Or cannibalism bca? Or self-demolition via progressive amputations?
What limits should a civilized peoples place on self-gratification bca?
If you say "none", then is it truly a civilization? Civilization requires some personal restraint, even if it requires enforcement.
Restricting enforcement to situations where one party claims abuse by another party leads back to where we are today, population segment [A]is offended by another segment [B] and passes laws to restrict [B's] behavior, even though [B's] behavior was between consenting adults. E.g. spousal abuse between consenting spouses; elder abuse bca, etc.
So where would you draw the line... or would there be no line at all?
For one thing, you have to be careful defining a behavior as "vile." Much of the time we think of something as vile only because it's illegal and hence associated with society's underground. Circular reasoning.
For instance, I might argue that prostitution is the least offensive and least dangerous of all the victimless crimes. Much more so than drugs. Where it's legal in Nevada I think the disease rate is something like 0%, or close to it. Other than self esteem issues for the men and women who feel they need to do it, I can think of no ill effects.
I think when Thought Police type situations are easily imaginable is where you have a law that needs rethinking. If I have sex with a woman and then offer her money, I've technically done something illegal. That's insane.
Flag burning is another one. Fortunately it's not illegal yet, but it does pop up in Congress occasionally. If it became the law, then suddenly you would have a situation where the only difference between legality and illegality is the thought in someone's head (Boy Scouts honorably burning a retired flag vs a political protester burning a flag).
As for your examples, I note that they aren't consenting: spousal abuse and elderly abuse. Both should be illegal because they involve victims.
Actually I included spousal abuse and elder abuse specifically because many times the victim will not admit to the abuse, and not admit to being a victim. So the victimhood is a relative judgement.
Your particular ethic seems to be that unless there is victimhood, there should be no restriction on behavior.
I suggest that this is untenable because every one is both a victim and an oppressor by someone's standard. For example, some blacks feel that I have oppressed them merely by being white, and that I owe them reparations: they are victims. On the other hand, I feel that these blacks are grifting cash from my pocket rather than joining the universal responsibility for self-care: I am a victim.
Victimhood is a personal perspective; making it a political tool that substitutes for an actual positive ethic of some sort seems futile.
It is quite possible to argue that alcohol, drugs, prostitution all produce collateral damage to families and culture at large. These victims are palpable.
It is also possible to argue - convincingly - that we are all victims of the government, of government schools, of the IRS, of the lack of protection, etc. So open revolution is justified.
I am opposing the drug war for pragmatic reasons rather than any political reasoning of human rights to destroy oneself. Perhaps the pragmatics extend to prostitution, but I doubt it.
Political reasoning must surely include a basis for a national ethic, or else it is just a national free-for-all as it is now becoming under perfect secularism. Or so it seems to me.
There will always be gray areas, of course.
But here's another way to think of it. Some theist philosophers, in responding to the problem of the so-called "hiddenness of God," propose that the reason God does not make his existence immediately obvious to everyone on the planet is because it would cause people to make moral decisions out of self-preservation (fear of judgement) instead of moral choice. Thus, morality would have no meaning.
In a similar vein, prostitution may very well be a poor moral decision, but fear of reprisal should not be the reason people decide not to do it.
Martin said,
"it would cause people to make moral decisions out of self-preservation (fear of judgement) instead of moral choice. Thus, morality would have no meaning."
Taken as a policy, then, no behavior would be illegal, including the obvious victim oriented behaviors? In other words, no laws at all except the obvious traffic custom codifications? No protection from the perpetual victimizers, who are merely making poor moral choices?
And what are the sources of the morals which underpin the choices? What code should we expect to encounter in our daily travels?
This is all regarding the egalizing drugs and tells about the ending war on drugs. Please read it carefully.
D.Addiction,
After a quick perusal, I don't find any information on ending the war on drugs on that site. It seems to speak in generalities which are commonly known.
Looks like a lot of conservatives are supportive of California's Proposition 19, to legalize marijuana. Youtube link.
Post a Comment