See other Health Articles
Title: Why Does America Have A Drug War?
Source:
Lew Rockwell
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger159.html
Published: Apr 22, 2009
Author: Jacob Hornberger
Post Date: 2009-04-22 06:49:46 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 167
Comments: 7
Given that most people agree that the drug war has failed to achieve its supposed purpose after decades of warfare, an important question arises: Why is the drug war still being waged, especially when we consider all the collateral damage that this federal program has produced? Hasn’t the time arrived for Americans to demand an immediate end to the war on drugs? Let’s first consider the concept of freedom. There is no way to reconcile drug laws with the principles of a free society. Under basic principles of freedom, a person has the fundamental right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as his conduct is peaceful and doesn’t violate the equal right of everyone else to do the same. Thus, most people support laws against such actions as murder, theft, fraud, burglary, robbery, and rape because they involve the initiation of force by one person against another. They involve one person’s violating the right of another person to live his life in a peaceful manner. But there is a wide range of actions that are risky, dangerous, and even harmful to the person engaging in them, actions that do not involve coercion or aggression against another person but that oftentimes involve severe injury to the person engaged in them. Consider mountain climbing, which can be very dangerous. Every few years, people are killed climbing Mount Everest, K-2, and other mountains around the world. The same goes for scuba diving, race-car driving, and even cycling. There are higher-than-ordinary risks to life and limb when people engage in certain activities. Should the government have the authority to make those activities illegal, in order to protect people from loss of life? An advocate of freedom would say no. Freedom entails the right to engage in high-risk activities, even if most people choose not to do so. What about activities in which people place their money at higher-than-ordinary risk? For example, investing in start-up companies, the futures market, or oil drilling. Gambling would be another example. Should the government make such activities illegal, in order to protect people’s savings? Again, most of us would say no. Freedom entails the right to do what one wants with his own money, even if he chooses to risk it all on a spin of a roulette wheel. What about ingesting harmful substances? Here is where some people’s attitude changes. Somehow they’ve come to the conclusion that freedom should simply be tossed out the window in favor of government protection from one’s peaceful choices when the choice involves the ingestion of a harmful substance. Yet what is considered destructive or harmful is a highly subjective matter. There are people who consider the consumption of meat to be harmful. Should the government have the authority to outlaw the eating of meat? How about sugar? Fatty foods? Why shouldn’t people be free to make those choices on their own? Why should a person’s consumption habits be subject to the vote of the majority? Why isn’t the exercise of such choices a fundamental right with which no one can legitimately interfere? The principle is really no different with respect to the consumption of most products, including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and tobacco. While most of us would consider the consumption of such things to be unhealthy, the fact is that some people are willing to incur the potential adverse effects of drugs for reasons that are important to them. Why shouldn’t they be free to make that call? Under what moral authority do governmental officials incarcerate them, fine them, or otherwise punish them for making that choice? Drug-war proponents often argue that a person’s drug use inevitably affects other people, especially his family. The argument is meant to suggest that the principles of freedom don’t really apply here because the drug user is violating the rights of others. That argument, however, reflects a woeful lack of understanding of freedom. Whenever a family member makes a choice, especially one entailing high risk to his life, limbs, or fortune, the choice has potentially bad consequences for the rest of the family. If a person gets killed climbing Mount Everest, that will adversely affect his family. The same holds true if he loses all his money investing in a start-up company or if he risks all his money at a roulette wheel in Las Vegas. Thus, the issue is not whether people’s choices adversely affect others. The issue is whether the choice is a peaceful one – that is, one that does not involve the initiation of force against another person (e.g., murder, rape, robbery). If the choice is peaceful, then a free society ensures that its exercise is protected regardless of its adverse effect on others. The right to be left alone State law-enforcement agents recently raided the home of Cheye Calvo, the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland. The agents had tracked a package containing marijuana that had been left on the front porch of Calvo’s house. When Calvo got home, he picked up the package and carried it into his house. Armed with a warrant, the drug agents burst into the house without warning, shot and killed Calvo’s two dogs, and bound Calvo and his mother-in-law. As things turned out, neither Calvo nor anyone in his home had anything to do with the drug transaction, as law-enforcement officials later acknowledged. The delivery of the package was part of a scheme in which drugs were being shipped to addresses of unsuspecting people, where they would be picked up by others involved in the scheme. Much of the hullabaloo in the press revolved around the fact that the search warrant did not authorize a no-knock raid, that the mayor and his family turned out to be innocent, and that his dogs were killed. Nearly everyone missed the much more important point: What business is it of the state that the mayor might have been consuming a harmful substance in the privacy of his own home? Why isn’t that his personal business? Why should the government have the power to harass, abuse, and punish him for possessing or consuming marijuana or any other drug in his own home? In other words, under what moral authority do they punish a person who is doing nothing more than ingesting substances that other people disapprove of? Moreover, it’s not as if there isn’t a bit of inconsistency in all this. As everyone knows, it’s legal for adults to consume alcohol and tobacco, two drugs that have killed many more people than marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or other illicit drugs. Why is it that people are free to ingest alcohol and tobacco and not free to ingest other harmful substances? The perpetual, destructive war When I began practicing law in 1975, the drug war was in full swing. In fact, my first trial involved a federal drug case in which I had been appointed to represent an indigent defendant. The assistant U.S. attorney and the drug agents who were involved in the case were committed, devoted, ardent enthusiasts of the drug war. They honestly believed they were serving their country by arresting and prosecuting drug-law violators. They honestly believed that their efforts would bring “victory” in the drug war. Presumably, those agents are now retiring with their federal pensions. Many of the drug agents who are now serving in their stead are no doubt driven by the same level of commitment that characterized agents 33 years ago. However, there is one big difference: The agents of today have a difficult time arguing with a straight face that their efforts are likely to bring “victory” in the drug war sometime soon. Most people now view the drug war as a permanent fixture of American life. The fact that it has proven to be such an utter failure seems irrelevant to most people. All that seems to matter is that law-enforcement agents continue making drug busts, raiding homes, arresting people, and filling the prisons. That has become the never-ending measure of drug-war success, even if all those actions do nothing to stem the consumption of illegal drugs. We also shouldn’t forget all the collateral damage from the drug war. Over the years, the illegality has caused prices and profits to soar, as they usually do in a black market. That has attracted drug lords, drug gangs, and drug cartels, which have then proceeded to engage in deadly turf battles, mostly in Mexico and other parts of Latin America. Drug addicts have gone on theft and robbery sprees to secure the money to purchase the higher-priced drugs, something that alcoholics or tobacco addicts never do, since the price of their addiction is comparatively lower. There is also corruption in the form of bribes paid to law-enforcement officers and judges. Prisons are overfilled with drug-law violators. Moreover, the adverse consequences of the drug war fall disproportionately on blacks. As the Drug Policy Alliance Network points out, Although African Americans compromise only 12.2 percent of the population and 13 percent of drug users, they make up 38 percent of those arrested for drug offenses and 59 percent of those convicted of drug offenses causing critics to call the war on drugs the “New Jim Crow.” Among the most important adverse collateral damage has been the massive infringement of privacy rights and civil liberties, especially through search and seizure of people’s bodies, homes, automobiles, personal effects, and financial records. And all for what? Just to keep the drug war going, no matter how much a failure it is and no matter how much damage it causes. Support for the drug war Why do people continue to support the drug war after decades of failure and horrible collateral damage? I suspect that the answer is twofold. First, many people feel that drug legalization would send a message to people, especially the young, that society approves of drug consumption. How valid is such a reason? It’s not valid at all. After all, in some states adultery is legal and no one worries about whether society is sending a message that people approve of adultery. People have come to believe that freedom entails the right to commit the nonviolent sin of adultery without being punished by the state for it. The same holds true for the consumption of alcohol and tobacco. Second, many people are still holding out hope that the continuing drug busts will finally produce “victory,” which will enable the state to end the drug war. But that’s just a pipe dream. For one thing, how much freedom would people have to surrender in order to achieve such a “victory”? A few years ago, the Thai government embarked on a deadly campaign to kill all the drug dealers in the country. After killing thousands of drug suspects, Thai officials are still waging a fierce war on drugs and catching lots of people in the process. Perhaps many advocates of the drug war have good intentions. Perhaps they honestly want to rid society of the scourge of drugs. But what good are good intentions? What do they matter? Even if we ascribe the best of intentions to drug-war proponents, the fact remains: the drug war is an utter failure and an engine of death, damage, and destruction. Ending the drug war What would happen if the drug war were ended and drugs were legalized? The first thing that would happen is that the drug gangs, drug lords, and drug cartels would go out of business instantaneously. Such people do well in black markets, when an activity is illegal, but they might well find it difficult to compete against legitimate pharmaceutical companies in a free-market setting. Wouldn’t putting drug giants out of business overnight be considered victory if it were accomplished through the drug war? The second thing that would happen is that the number of robberies, muggings, burglaries, and thefts would plummet, because drug users would no longer have to pay the exorbitant and artificially high prices for black-market drugs. Wouldn’t a reduction in violent crime be considered a victory if it were accomplished through the drug war? The third thing that would happen is that more drug addicts would be likely to seek treatment, because they would no longer have to hide their addiction for fear of being caught and sent to jail. Rehabilitation usually depends on frank and open discussion of one’s addiction, something that the harsh penalties of the drug war don’t encourage. Wouldn’t an increase in the number of people seeking drug rehab be considered a victory if it were accomplished through the drug war? The fourth thing that would happen is that corruption among law-enforcement agents and judges would plummet, because the absence of drug prosecutions would dry up the payment of drug-war bribes. Wouldn’t a decrease in corruption be considered a victory if it were accomplished through the drug war? The fifth thing that would happen is that a government program whose adverse consequences fall disproportionately on a racial minority would be removed from American society. Finally, no longer would Americans have to deal with the constant assaults on privacy and civil liberties at the hands of drug agents, because one of the primary excuses for doing so – the war on drugs – would be non-existent. It is impossible to reconcile the drug war with the principles of a free society. The war has accomplished nothing positive and has done horrific damage. Enough is enough. The time has come for the American people to lead the world out of the drug-war morass. The time has come to repeal all civil and criminal penalties for possession and distribution of drugs. The time has come to end the war on drugs.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
ping
Amen, but it will never happen until we take the country back from the scoundrels. That won't happen by doing nothing.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition The drug war is a farce. The terminology used would suggest that we have waged war on an inanimate object when in reality they have declared war on a supposed free people who choose for one reason or another to use some type of drug. The harm of the drug war is placed upon those people who use. Under this rationale a war could be declaired upon anyone who chooses to exercise freedom of choice that does not fit with others rigid morality. Where does this end? The problem is, IMO that in a supposed free society at some point everyone would be exposed to or come in contact with some activity they do not care for. It is how we treat one another and each persons rights. Respect for each other would go a long way here. I have heard several people say things that are just not so. Such as it turns women into prostitutes and makes men have gay sex. Where do they get these ideas from? They get the ideas from living in their own rigid world without concern for others freedoms. In addition to believeing the lies the gov. spews out. I would suggest that those who engage in these practices do so because they wish to and has nothing to do with the consumption. The use of drugs while engaging in these practices is just additional enjoyment for them. But I believe they would still proceed to act in the manner they see fit. The government propaganda is its own enemy. Especially when marijuana is concerned. The gov. uses arguments that are so farfetched when a person does take the plunge and try mj they find out that what they have been told has been lies. I believe Joe Rogan who is an actor is a perfect example. He discovered this later than most in life and has stated so. Those that do harm and steal from others for drugs have broken the law no matter what their reasons were. Not every thief is a drug user so obviously there are other forces that drive people to steal. I have had some experience with these drug warriors. It is not pleasant. And like many other things in our society today you seem to loose constitutional rights if you use drugs. They drew down on my dog as well, I stopped them. I guess I'm lucky they didn't shoot me over a plant. By the time I came before the judge and my attorney presented the facts that I had never even received a traffic ticket and had no criminal background the judge looked me in the face and stated, " Well, a person like you, I would have thought would be on our side." Of course I did not respond but my mind was thinking, You thought wrong! It was all about the money anyway. Round about $20,000.00 just for me. Their tactics did not change my mind. It steeled my resolve to expose these lies being told at mine and others expense. I will also state clearly. When you break into my home with black uniforms, masked faces to protect their identity, point weapons at otherwise law abiding citizens, kill family pets. YOU are a TERRORIST! The bottom line is that the war on drugs is more harmful to the user in many cases than the use of the drug itself. As Americans I will ask all this. Were you taught to kick your neighbor or family member when they are down or were you taught to lend a hand up? The drug war is unamerican.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
The second thing that would happen is that the number of robberies, muggings, burglaries, and thefts would plummet, because drug users would no longer have to pay the exorbitant and artificially high prices for black-market drugs. Very doubtful. Human desires are not limited; the money from robberies would be spent on the next thing on the list. The fourth thing that would happen is that corruption among law-enforcement agents and judges would plummet, because the absence of drug prosecutions would dry up the payment of drug-war bribes. Very doubtful. Money now spent on drug war bribes would become bribes for something else. Like bribes from legitimate pharmaceutical companies.
Libertarians say whites should have the same right to all-white communities that other races do in their own communities. Nobody listens to them, but that doesn't stop them. Libertarians are dismissed for a reason everyone knows but nobody says. Job security for pigs? The means to confiscate private property from citizens under dubious circumstances and outright legalized theft?? Cool new 'toys' such as armored personnel carriers to use against the hopefully soon-to-be-disarmed citizens???
_________________________________________________________________________ I dunno... the scoundrels might like the masses doped up. It's a cost-benefit calculation, and right now prohibition makes more sense for them. Other way around: a free people capable of taking back their government will have neither a drug problem nor a desire for drug laws.
Libertarians say whites should have the same right to all-white communities that other races do in their own communities. Nobody listens to them, but that doesn't stop them. Libertarians are dismissed for a reason everyone knows but nobody says.LEAP bump!
#2. To: Ada, *LEAP*, *libertarians* (#0)
but the sheiks would shriek and the barons would bellow if hemp was made legal...and people became mellow
#3. To: Ada (#0)
It is impossible to reconcile the drug war with the principles of a free society. The war has accomplished nothing positive and has done horrific damage. Enough is enough. The time has come for the American people to lead the world out of the drug-war morass. The time has come to repeal all civil and criminal penalties for possession and distribution of drugs. The time has come to end the war on drugs.
#4. To: Ada (#0)
#5. To: Ada (#0)
#6. To: Ada (#0)
Why is the drug war still being waged...?
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#7. To: IndieTX (#3)
Amen, but it will never happen until we take the country back from the scoundrels.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest