On the drug war
Xrlqy Wrlqy says:
drugs have become a religion on both sides. On the one hand, drug prohibitionists have an annoying tendency to ignore the fact that prohibiting a substance causes the price to skyrocket, thereby creating the motive underlying most “drug-related” crime. On the other, legalization and decriminalization advocates have an equally annoying tendency to ignore the fact that repealing the prohibition (or reducing enforcement efforts) on that same substance would cause the price to plummet, thereby causing recreational use (and, inevitably, abuse) to increase.
Probably. But one annoying tendency doesn’t lead to 90 year-old grandmothers being shot dead by police and then the police engage in a cover up. And another does. The religion of peace, I guess.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Amen
February 9th, 2009 at 10:23 am
My suggestion is to legalize possession and transfer, and have usage, public intoxication, or display illegal. Basically, if anybody you don’t know sees you it’s illegal, if nobody sees you it’s legal. Seems to me that avoids the worst of both worlds (kills no-knock raids, doesn’t allow loser parents toking up in Chuck E. Cheese). The definitions would need to be made precise, but that’s the general idea.
Does anyone actually know someone who would use drugs if they were cheap and legal, and doesn’t use them now?
February 9th, 2009 at 10:49 am
“But one annoying tendency doesn’t lead to 90 year-old grandmothers being shot dead by police and then the police engage in a cover up. And another does.”
That entirely depends on the nature of deregulation. Alcohol is legal but highly taxed and we still have bootleggers fighting revenuers today. Do we have the same level of violence as before? Not openly, but the US had almost same number of drunk driving deaths as murders in 2006 (~16,000) and not all those murders were drug related.
“Does anyone actually know someone who would use drugs if they were cheap and legal, and doesn’t use them now?”
Yes. If you reduce the cost then the market will grow, it is basic economics. Assuming they’ve already reached market saturation is just wishful thinking. Think about how many people still smoke.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Sorry, the War on Drugs has led to the infringement on alot of our Constitutionaly Enumerated rights. End the war on drugs, treat anything that grows out of the freaking ground like the other legal drugs.
I don’t really think that the cost will go down, imagine all of the “sin” tax revenue that the govvies will be drooling over, I imagine the prices will be comparable to cigarettes.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Jeff,
US had almost same number of drunk driving deaths as murders in 2006 (~16,000)
Please stop parroting MADD’s hysterical propaganda.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
The logic that treats drug prohibition as a reasonable response to drug abuse is the same logic that treats gun prohibition as a reasonable response to gun abuse.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
EgregiousCharles:
Of course. It’s basic economics: raise the price of X, and someone will stop doing it, lower the price, and someone will stop. I’d probably smoke an occasional joint myself if it were legal and the cost was comparable that of a decent cigar.
John H.: here’s where the analogy breaks down. Gun prohibition burdens proper gun use as much as it burdens gun abuse, if not more. Total drug prohibition, with no provisions for doctors prescribing anything not currently available over the counter, would do the same thing for drugs. But no one seriously advocates total drug prohibition.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I *still* do not get where the Constitution permits the government to prohibit an individual from growing and consuming a naturally occurring plant within the confines of their own property.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
“The logic that treats drug prohibition as a reasonable response to drug abuse is the same logic that treats gun prohibition as a reasonable response to gun abuse.”
The analogy also breaks down because the pharmaceutical effects of some drugs fundamentally manipulate behavior either through chemical effects on the body or through the addiction cycle. Guns don’t do that in psychologically healthy human beings.
“I *still* do not get where the Constitution permits the government to prohibit an individual from growing and consuming a naturally occurring plant within the confines of their own property.”
I believe this is because of some stupid interpretation of the commerce clause, but you’re right it’s crap.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Like most things, _jon, it could be ascribed to the “General Welfare” clause.
I’d be interested to hear from a Con Law person if the “General Welfare of the Unites States” refers to the well-being of the State (gov’t) or the well-being of the people, though. Considering the rather explicit use of ‘the people’ numerous times, I would suspect the former over the latter.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
“Please stop parroting MADD’s hysterical propaganda.”
Please don’t insult me when you can’t be bothered to actually read DoT, NHTSA, and CDC reports. While I’m not a huge fan of MADD, at least they can show statistical correlation between their grading schemes and reduced driving deaths. The Brady Campaign can’t say that.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
True Confessions:
I know people who smoke weed. They hold down good jobs, and are upstanding members of the community. I’ve also ridden with a person who has been drinking, and a person who had been smoking weed. Trust me, you wanna ride with the pothead. He drove the speed limit or below (mostly below) and had a concentration that rivaled a driver in NASCAR.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Americans only believe in freedom on the Fourth of July. The rest of the year they spend making sacrifices, and praying feverishly, publicly and loudly to the false god of restriction. They seem satisfied with that, and I don’t see any Moses coming along to tell them to knock off worshipping that dumb Golden Calf. Not yet anyways, and certainly not with the Oblamarama himself being a certifiable, high priest, divine prophet, and anointed representative of the false god of restriction.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
OK, if the general welfare or commerce clause is where they’re trying to argue their power comes from why was the 18th required for both criminalization AND authority to act?
I work with potheads, well, one, and a few occasional users. Families, responsible, own their own business but according to the busy bodies they’re horrible criminals flying planes into buildings. I know cops and EMTs who smoke pot and drive drunk.
You think these “laws” aren’t just a means to justify government control and abuse then you’re high!
February 9th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
The answer depends on which government you are talking about. If you’re talking about state drug laws, the answer is “we don’t need no steenking permission.” If you’re talking about the federal government, the answer is a strained reading of the commerce clause and/or the necessary and proper clause. It is NOT the general welfare clause of the preamble, which neither authorizes nor prohibits anything.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Does not bother me one bit that narcotics and such are illegal. I do not go for the anarchic version of libertarianism.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Let’s see, if they can crack corn into crappy gas at say $3 a gallon, then they ought to be able to put a fifth of watered-down grain neutral spirits in a plastic screw-top bottle for about 75 to 100 cents each. Double that for taxes at a 100% rate. Double that again for the wholesale/retail markup and you’ll see that mall-wart could probably get it in the consumer’s hands for four bucks each.
Seeing as the government-regulated hard liquor market has made prices at least triple that and you’ll see why there’s still some unregulated distillers out there. (There’s also the angle of giving the finger to the BATFU)
What I don’t see, however, is those bootleggers shooting each other over turf wars. I guess if the profit motive, (say Prohibition or perhaps the government wanted to quadruple it’s already sky-high tax rate), we might.
I’ve been known to get a bit of wrinkle nose from taking a sip out of a mason jar occasionally, and I’ve always wondered if the special sauce was just a 60/40 mix of canned peaches in syrup and some Everclear. It’s always been a “don’t ask, don’t tell” special kinda treat.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Jeff,
www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810985.PDF
Of the 12,998 deaths involving a drunk driver, 10,792 deaths were the drunk driver or his passenger. 2,206 were in other vehicles or pedestrians,implying that they were all blameless victims. If any of the 2,206 were impaired is not recorded and who was at-fault is never discussed.
The NHTSA makes up BAC numbers for an average of 60% of the drivers using imputation (statistical probability), so the real numbers will be lower unless they guessed right 100% of the time. The government quietly admits that their figures are approximate and that alcohol impairment did not necessarily lead to the fatalities.
They were recently forced to stealth edit the preposterous claim that “impaired” drivers kill “almost 18,000 citizens” each year. Somehow, over 5,000 lives were saved.
MADD is an evil neo-prohibitionist organization whose ultimate aim is to end public alcohol consumption, period. They are every bit as sneaky and duplicitous as the Brady Bunch. MADD has done their level best to do away with the 4th Amendment just as the Bradys have done with the 2nd.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
X,
Why doesn’t the preamble authorize nor prohibit anything? It seems to very clearly say that Congress may do things.
Not arguing, I don’t even play a ConLaw professor on TV, just asking.
February 11th, 2009 at 8:00 am
No, it doesn’t. All it does is state the purposes behind the Constitution, and state that it is thereby adopted. It doesn’t say Congress (or anyone else) may (or may not) do anything. Good thing, too, ‘cuz if it did, every law would be constitutional if a court thought Congress had a rational basis for believing the law in question would form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare or secure the blessings of liberty. The general welfare clause would be the worst of the lot; when was the last time Congress admitting to passing anything that they didn’t think would promote the general welfare?
February 11th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
OK, I was actually looking at Article 1, Section 8:
I agree that such a reading would have troubling consequences, but just because I don’t like it…
February 11th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
That would be the tax and spend power, which is indeed plenary. However, it applies only to Congress’s power to tax and spend, not to regulate directly. This is why Congress can bribe states to have certain speed limits, helmet laws, minimum drinking ages, etc. and accomplish by bribery what it could not do on its own. That’s not how federal drug laws work.