Gun Control and the War on Drugs - A. Gregory

[mercedesrules]

Subject - unintended consequences of re-legalizing drugs:

How about ... off the top of my head ... health issues with the attendent rise in health care costs

The healthcare costs are (or should be) in the control of the individual that chooses to do risky things. Any public healthcare concerns are due to recently-socialized medicine.

...

increased numbers of drug-affected babies

No one can monitor expectant mothers 24/7 for risky behavior.

...

workplace problems

Business owners could fire unreliable employees.

... black market (will happen, same as with tobacco and alcohol)

Only if there are still oppressive regulations. I advocate repealing those - on alcohol and tobacco, too. All drugs should be over-the-counter.

.... impact on public schools and higher education

"Impact" not specific enough. Don't get me started on government schools (they should not exist)

... Drug abuse will increase under legalization, some estimates up to another 20 million addicts

Irrelevant - assumes that the number of people that take a certain drug has some importance.

... AIDS and hepatitis rates will increase

The war on needles causes this tragedy. Repealing needle prohibition will reduce this.

... there will be a huge impact on the criminal justice system as well (just look at the numbers of alcohol-related court cases now). There is evidence that violent crime would in fact rise with an increase in the numbers of cocaine users ...

There's no utopia; I'll take my chances with liberty.As far as "alcohol-related", there are still too many laws about drinking. Again, all drug were legal for 125 years.

People bring up Switzerland as an example. Did you know that the number of addicts quickly quadrupled when Zurich established its experimental free needle exchange program and gave over a park for addicts to use? Zurich's burglary rate AND the number of prostitutes both skyrocketed.

I advocate neither "free" needles nor special drug parks. Prostitution is a vice, not a crime.

 

[publius]

Is it really worth all the human suffering just so the one responsible guy can indulge his habit?

Is it really worth all the money and effort, not to mention costs to our freedom, to try unsuccessfully to keep that one responsible guy from being stoned?

After all, about half of our annual illegal drug arrests are cannabis related, with the vast majority of those being for possession. Source.

I'd say it's worth talking about where we spend half of our energy, more than it's worth talking about any component of the other half.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Why is it this debate is often cast as “the guy who smokes a joint in his living room Friday night after work”? How do you distinguish between that fellow and the 12 year old smoking a joint at school, or the crackhead smoking a pipe in some abandoned building? Or the guy who does cocaine and get paranoid and destroys the lives of his family? Or spends the family budget on drugs?

The same way I distinguish my occasional glass of beer or wine from the 12-year-old drinking at school or the vagrant swilling rotgut in an abandoned building or the paranoid alcoholic (like my uncle) who ruins the lives of his family or the guy who wastes the family budget on booze.

~G. Fink

 

[The Rabbi]

The same way I distinguish my occasional glass of beer or wine from the 12-year-old drinking at school or the vagrant swilling rotgut in an abandoned building or the paranoid alcoholic (like my uncle) who ruins the lives of his family or the guy who wastes the family budget on booze.

And your solution is to make those problems worse???

Is it really worth all the money and effort, not to mention costs to our freedom, to try unsuccessfully to keep that one responsible guy from being stoned?

How much is it worth to keep that kid's dad away from coke so he can grow up in a relatively normal household? One-parent homes are the largest source of criminals.

I can agree that a case can be made for marijuana, although I am not sure any state's experiment with decriminalizing has been successful. In any case, public opinion is definitely not on that side.

 

[publius]

Rabbi,

I'm a libertarian, sometimes with the capital L even, but I'm not interested in dismantling the entire federal regulatory state in one fell swoop and replacing it with nothing. Some of it, I'd replace with state or local government. Some with private insurance and certification agencies. Some I'd replace with nothing.

I'm an incrementalist. I think the drug war does more harm than good, you think that it does more good than harm. I think it makes sense to end it one step at a time, and the first logical step would be cannabis, for many reasons. The most relevant here at THR would be Raich and Stewart, but I'd also include medical freedom, industrial hemp, and the fact that we spend so darn much energy chasing after cannabis users. If we're going to chase drug users at all (which I still think is a generally bad idea, as far as use in private places is concerned), I'd rather see us chase crack heads and meth labs.

But as long as half our drug war energy is focused on cannabis, and as long as it is a cannabis related case upon which the extent of federal gun laws now depends, I'll keep on talking about the guy who comes home and smokes a joint.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Why is it this debate is often cast as "the guy who smokes a joint in his living room Friday night after work"? How do you distinguish between that fellow and the 12 year old smoking a joint at school, or the crackhead smoking a pipe in some abandoned building? Or the guy who does cocaine and get paranoid and destroys the lives of his family? Or spends the family budget on drugs? Is it really worth all the human suffering just so the one responsible guy can indulge his habit?

The reason why I framed my question that way is because in that specific scenario it's pretty much black and white, and there should be no reason why someone feels morally justified in coming in with guns blazing to throw him in a cage.

A 12 year old does not have full rights yet, as he is still under the legal supervision of his parents, but it is still illegal for said 12 year old to drink grain alcohol at school.

or the crackhead smoking a pipe in some abandoned building

I think that would count as trespassing. If it's abandoned and no one claims ownership then the state or town should sell it.

Or the guy who does cocaine and get paranoid and destroys the lives of his family?

Coke doesnt just make people flip out and murder people, if a guy does that while on coke it's a pretty good bet he's rather messed up to start with. I have heard about people kill family in a drunken rage, should we ban booze?

Or spends the family budget on drugs?

I know of some that do that now but on booze, should we ban it?

Is it really worth all the human suffering just so the one responsible guy can indulge his habit?

A point that I think has ben pretty well illustrated is that the WoD causes fare more suffering then the drugs themselves, which is why many of us are so opposed to it.

Rabbi, I wish you would at least be ideologically consistent, either let people do drugs if they're not bothering anyone or just ban everything outright. Booze, tobacco, meds, currently illegal drugs, coffee, everything. We'll make the Taliban and Cromwell look like kindergarden bullies, we'll show them.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Rabbi,

Situation A - A kid's dad does coke in the living room

Situation B - A kid's Dad is beaten and gang raped while in jail for doing coke in the living room.

Which one is better for the kid?

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, I wish you would at least be ideologically consistent, either let people do drugs if they're not bothering anyone or just ban everything outright. Booze, tobacco, meds, currently illegal drugs, coffee, everything. We'll make the Taliban and Cromwell look like kindergarden bullies, we'll show them.

The ideologues try to paint this as an either/or issue: either you're in favor of a full-blown police state or in favor of full legalization. Either you want every pleasure we have banned or you want everything legal and available. It is a small-minded argument. Real-life is nuanced, with a range of good, bad, more good than bad, more bad than good. Alcohol is in the more good than bad category. Crack is in the bad category and pot is in the more bad than good category.
People harp on this "as long as they dont bother people" thing. But they do bother people. They bother their neighbors, their co-workers, their family, their friends, etc. Some people will get out of control. Some people will anyway, I grant, but it seems that making it worse is not a good solution. When people get out of control they cost society money: in lost wages, in property destroyed, and in medical bills. The Libertarian solution to that is to "let 'em die in the streets" and we've seen that voiced here once or twice. That isnt the solution of a decent society. That;s not even the solution of a decent human being. It is the solution of the totalitarians and ideologues with their "you must break eggs to make an omelette" theories.

 

[publius]

Crack is in the bad category and pot is in the more bad than good category.

Yet almost half of our illegal drug arrests are for pot, with the vast majority for possession.

Is this one of those Kerry nuances?

 

[Justin]

The Libertarian solution to that is to "let 'em die in the streets" and we've seen that voiced here once or twice.

You know, after 14 pages you think you could at least try to fake like you've been paying attention. Even in a purely libertarian society those who get themselves into a bad way wouldn't simply be left to "die in the streets." Like I said before, if you want to go out and play Mother Teresa, bully for you. In a libertarian society there would be nothing stopping churches, private organizations, non-profits, for-profits, family members or other individuals from going out and saving someone who has a problem with drug/alcohol/whathaveyou abuse.

I seriously doubt that there is one libertarian on this board who, if they had a family member with a drug problem would just kick them out to die in the street. You're using deliberately provocative language to circumvent rational debate by attempting to plant an image of poor, downtrodden junkies dying by the score on winter streets.

That isnt the solution of a decent society.

Agreed. But neither is forcing me to engage in "charity" at gunpoint because you want to go out and save every single person who ever made a bad decision in their life. Nor is the solution to pass laws infringing on my civil rights.

I'm sorry, Rabs, but your approach to this problem has been tried for the better part of forty years and has obviously failed.

 

[The Rabbi]

You know, after 14 pages you think you could at least try to fake like you've been paying attention. Even in a purely libertarian society those who get themselves into a bad way wouldn't simply be left to "die in the streets.

Justin, my expectations were already low and you've helped fulfill them. I was just considering that Publius, Gordon Fink and other and Ihave gone 15 pages without resorting to a lot of this ad hominem stuff. And then you crop up. But here are 5 separate posts just in this thread with people expressing the "let em die in the streets" mentality, so dont tell me I havent been paying attention.

Post 31, 34, 113, 235, 298

As far as family members, even the best meaning families seldom have the resources to take care of chronically ill people, especially if family finances have already been decimated by addiction.

 

[LawDog]

More heat than light. This one is done.

Lights out.

LawDog