Posted on 10/05/2007 7:17:45 AM PDT by cryptical
I've looked forward to interviewing the U.S. drug czar for years, and Tuesday afternoon I finally got the chance when current czar John Walters visited with the U-T editorial board. I'm happy to note that he took my libertarian griping seriously; many drug warriors seem amazed that anyone could suggest that the drug war is futile, costly, counterproductive and hypocritical, and often amounts to an assault on civil liberties.
I said to Walters that by any possible statistical reckoning of deaths, car wrecks, suicides, drownings, crimes of violence, etc., alcohol is vastly more destructive in the U.S. than all illegal drugs combined. I asked if he disputed this.
He didn't answer me directly even after I reposed the question. Basically, he said that while alcohol may be a big and destructive problem, the fact that alcohol is legal doesn't mean you don't try to reduce the use of other, illegal drugs. He said "the danger of marijuana today" is far greater than in the old days, thanks to its potency.
Did he in any way acknowledge the oddity of having a war on drugs that don't kill all that many people while tolerating drugs (alcohol, tobacco) which fill up graveyards 24-7?
Nope.
I said that many libertarians object to the drug war not just on the grounds that government shouldn't tell people what they can put in their bodies but on the grounds that the execution of the drug war routinely involves assaults on civil liberties. I cited past drug czars' eager touting of confiscation policies, in which a family could lose its only car without even a court hearing if one member were caught driving the car while in possession of pot. Did he see the drug war as diminishing civil liberties?
Walters offered a broad defense of asset-forfeiture tactics as being "designed to reduce the demand in a tangible way. ... I'm not going to say" that "laws sometimes aren't misapplied," but claims that civil liberties are a routine victim of the drug war are "great misrepresentations" and a "great mischaracterization."
He said the "magnitude of the injustice" suffered in some cases was exaggerated.
I wanted to get to other questions before our time ran out, so I didn't ask him the obvious follow-up about the fact that no one is actually ever charged with a crime in many asset forfeiture cases, and that there is plenty of evidence that giving police agencies a motive to seize property (they can sell it later and add to their budgets) is a horrible idea.
Then I got into Milton Friedman's critique of the drug war, noting the evidence that the drug war -- by making popular intoxicants illegal and only available via a highly lucrative black market -- was responsible for lots of crimes beyond buying and selling, and that it had led to police corruption, among many other unintended consequences. I asked what he would do to combat drugs if could start over from scratch.
He said "the problem is not that we make drugs a crime; it is that drugs are catalysts to crime." And he said what "the facts really say" is that Milton Friendman's criticisms of the drug war were "untrue -- demonstrably untrue."
Here's what Friedman had to say in Newsweek in 1972 as the drug war was first gearing up:
Legalizing drugs would simultaneously reduce the amount of crime and raise the quality of law enforcement. Can you conceive of any other measure that would accomplish so much to promote law and order?
But, you may say, must we accept defeat? Why not simply end the drug traffic? That is where experience under Prohibition is most relevant. We cannot end the drug traffic. We may be able to cut off opium from Turkey but there are innumerable other places where the opium poppy grows. With French cooperation, we may be able to make Marseilles an unhealthy place to manufacture heroin but there are innumerable other places where the simple manufacturing operations involved can be carried out. So long as large sums of money are involved -- and they are bound to be if drugs are illegal -- it is literally hopeless to expect to end the traffic or even to reduce seriously its scope. In drugs, as in other areas, persuasion and example are likely to be far more effective than the use of force to shape others in our image.
Still looks "literally hopeless" to me. Walters offered stats showing declining use of certain illegal drugs, but so have past drug czars -- and guess what? New drug crazes emerged like clockwork (meth, oxycontin, etc.). Has the basic human interest in altered consciousness ever waned? Of course not.
Here's what Friedman wrote in 1992 as a follow-up to his 1972 Newsweek column:
Very few words in that column would have to be changed for it to be publishable today. The problem then was primarily heroin and the chief source of the heroin was Marseilles. Today, the problem is cocaine from Latin America. Aside from that, nothing would have to be changed.
Here it is almost twenty years later. What were then predictions are now observable results. As I predicted in that column, on the basis primarily of our experience with Prohibition, drug prohibition has not reduced the number of addicts appreciably if at all and has promoted crime and corruption.
Here's what Friedman wrote in 1991 about the vast toll the drug war took on the poor, especially minorities:
We can stop destroying the possibility of a decent family life among the underprivileged in this country. I do not agree with many people who would agree with me on that point about the role that government ought to play in the treatment of addiction. I do not agree either with those who say that the tragedy of the slums is really a social problem, that the underprivileged do not have enough jobs and therefore government has to provide them with jobs. I want to tell those people that government performance is no better in creating jobs and solving other social problems than it is in drug prohibition.
It is 2007, and nearly 30 percent of young African-American males in many cities are in jail, on probation or on parole, and the drug war is the main reason. It is 2007, and it is still common to hear black youths and young adults describe an urban lifestyle so barren that pro sports and drug dealing are the only way out. Is Milton Friedman "demonstrably untrue" in warning of the drug war's collateral damage in ghettos? Of course not.
Here's what Friedman wrote in 1988 about a huge problem with the drug war that's rarely mentioned:
Legalizing drugs would reduce enormously the number of victims of drug use who are not addicts: people who are mugged, people who are corrupted, the reduction of law and order because of the corruption of law enforcement, and the allocation of a very large fraction of law enforcement resources to this one particular activity.
Is he wrong again? Hardly. Especially after 9/11, our eagerness to spend billions a week to wage an unwinnable war on drugs is simultaneously wasteful, irrational and dangerous.
Walters didn't say what he would do to reduce destructive drug use if he could start from scratch. He seems to believe in the status quo.
Why? Because in fighting the drug war, ''There are clear signs of progress.''
No, that wasn't just the sort of thing Walters said Tuesday. That was President George H.W. Bush talking in 1990 on the first anniversary of his appointment of the first drug czar, Bill Bennett. Similar claims came out of the Clinton administration in 1997 after stepped-up cooperation with Mexico. Now we're hearing the same from this Bush administration.
This isn't even Orwellian; it's too simple-minded. We are making progress in the drug war, the government tells us, now and always.
Shouldn't perpetual progress at some point add up to something substantial and significant? Shouldn't perpetual progress mean at some point, a la the "defense dividend" after the end of the Cold War, that we can spend less on the drug war?
Why, of course not. Such questions aren't helpful. What's important, after all, is that we are making progress in the drug war. Just look at our charts and graphs.
The mind reels. The only thing "demonstrably untrue" about Milton Friedman's drug-war critique is the idea that it has been discredited.
Nice to see you haven't changed.
One note singer, indeed. It's called a sustain. I'm famous for my sustain .... Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa ...
I don't care abut it ending. I don't think drug abuse will end, any more than I think murder, or robbery, or prostitution, or a number of crimes will end.
"But why on earth is it important to you if your next door neighbor catches a buzz or stays up all night as long as they don’t cause you harm?"
They can do that. Hell, they probably do. I can't control their actions and I have no intention of trying. They're adults and know what the consequences are.
"Are you truly worried about the health and welfare of those you’ve never met?"
It's in my best interest to live in a healthy and functioning society -- especially when I get on a plane, see my doctor, or drive on public roads.
This wording does not seem to be impressing the JBTs when they see something they want to steal without trial. Consider the case of the Guatemalan dishwasher who, after working in the US for 11 years, returned to Guatemala without filling out the right Customs form on leaving the US, and had $59,000 cash stolen.
http://chuckpalahniuk.net/community/showthread.php?t=30904
This happened long after CAFRA 2000, and this wasn't even a drug case. I don't like stoners any more than you do, but what I really resent is drug enforcement being used as an excuse to militarize law enforcement and strip us of our basic rights.
Despite that governmentally-ignored verbiage you cited, we have now lost the right to carry cash without getting official permission. AND... we still have the same drug problem.
More non sequitur. If there is no difference between alcohol and any other drug, then it is irrational to prohibit one and not the other. The rule of law disintegrates in the face of such irrationality.
Prohibition reduces use. I call that "working".
Wonderful. However, the rule of law does not depend on an arbitrary and subjective definition. Prohibition, by definition intends to eliminate use. It does no such thing, therefore it is not working.
It reduces drug use, therefore it is working, therefore it is not futile.
Naked assertion and an invalid predicate. See above. It is not working, it never will, therefore it is futile.
The police power of a state, an inherent power going back 400 years, is "the capacity of a state to regulate behaviors and enforce order within its territory, often framed in terms of public welfare, security, morality, and safety".
The longevity of a particular mindset does not equate to its correctness. It was believed for centuries that kings and queens exercised despotic rule by divine right. This country was founded on a dispute of that notion.
Also, you have described what the police power of a state might be, but you have not addressed the proper use of that power nor have you addressed its limits. Your answer is not a direct rebuttal of the assertion that it is improper for the state to regulate what we ingest or even for what purpose we ingest it.
So a reduction in drug use is no good and therefore the program is futile.
Repeating once again, the attempted regulation by the state of what we ingest is improper. As well, the behavior cannot be eliminated by prohibition. This has already been demonstrated with alcohol. Therefore, prohibition is futile.
But you can't expect me to have sympathy for his guy.
He's an illegal alien who was here for 11 years without taking the time to learn English or become familiar with our laws. He never paid taxes on his earnings. He failed to report that cash when he was leaving the US. Spending that money in Guatemala does nothing for American jobs. He's a criminal, and you're acting like some bleeding heart liberal.
After taxes, fines, and penalties, we'll use what's left to build a wall.
I never said that. I said the success or failure of prohibiting one has no relationship to the success or failure of prohibiting the other. This makes, I believe, the third time.
"Prohibition, by definition intends to eliminate use. It does no such thing, therefore it is not working."
How does that relate to our laws prohibiting murder? Since murder has not been eliminated, our laws against murder are "not working".
Now what? Eliminate those, too?
"Your answer is not a direct rebuttal of the assertion that it is improper for the state to regulate what we ingest"
Correct. My answer was a direct rebuttal to your original assertion that "it is not a proper function of government to regulate what we ingest". Who would you deem appropriate to regulate the public welfare and safety if not the government?
"the attempted regulation by the state of what we ingest is improper."
No, regulating the interstate commerce of immoral or harmful items is a proper and constitutional role of government. Of course, government is not required to regulate these items, but they do have that power and it is proper for them to do so with the concurrence of the voters.
"As well, the behavior cannot be eliminated by prohibition"
Do you know of any that can?
"Therefore, prohibition is futile."
Isn't the correct phrase, "Resistance is futile"?
His being an illegal is justification for deporting him. It does not justify us stealing his money, unless we can prove that he got it other than by earning it. And if we're going to make a criminal allegation like that, the burden of proof is on us, not him.
If this guy is sent home stripped of his earnings, and because of this he feels motivated to join some guerrilla group that does anti-American acts, then we richly deserve whatever they do to us.
I am aware of what you said, and I have responded twice now that what you said was non sequitur. The issue here is whether or not it is consistent and rational to prohibit one drug and not another. There is no functional difference between alcohol and marijuana. Prohibiting one and not the other is inconsistent and irrational. Do you agree or disagree?
How does that relate to our laws prohibiting murder?
Prohibition of murder does not work either, obviously. The only thing that can be done is to make the punishment harsh enough to deter those who would commit it. Would you suggest that we institute capital punishment for people who smoke pot?
Now what? Eliminate those, too?
Irrelevant. There are two parts of my argument for the futility of drug prohibition. They cannot be separated. Murder impinges upon the equal rights of another individual. Therefore, it is a proper function of the state to prohibit it.
I said:
Your answer is not a direct rebuttal of the assertion that it is improper for the state to regulate what we ingest.
You responded:
Correct. My answer was a direct rebuttal to your original assertion that "it is not a proper function of government to regulate what we ingest".
You say "correct," indicating that it was not a direct rebuttal, but then you repeat that it is. Which is it?
Who would you deem appropriate to regulate the public welfare and safety if not the government?
Whether or not I choose to ingest any particular substance for any particular reason, so long as it does not directly impinge on the equal rights of others, does not lie in the domain of the public welfare. Your question is irrelevant.
No, regulating the interstate commerce of immoral or harmful items is a proper and constitutional role of government.
It is a proper and constitutional role of our federal government, and only because it is a subset of the regulation of all interstate commerce. However, we are not talking only about trafficking and we are not talking about only the federal government. The government, both federal and local, prohibits the possession and trafficking of drugs, interstate or intrastate. As well, whether regulation of commerce includes prohibition is arguable.
Do you know of any that can?
Not a single one. Prohibition of anything, by itself, is futile. In the case of the war on drugs, the futility of prohibition is compounded by the government committing resources in an effort to make it appear less so.
OK, I need a shower. That gave me the willies.....
And more BS from Mrs. Paulsens little boy Bobby. It has been a while but the last time I hung in there on a long thread where you presented yourself as the last word on RKBA, the 2A, and the history of jurisprudence. In the end you cried like my b**** that it was "your opinion" and excuse you for posting it. You are second rate snake oil, a sniveling lacky, a cheap suit at a black tie affair and just arrogant enough to think no one else is sophisticated enough to notice.
Whack away.
As far as it goes, the WOD is a failure but the militarization of law enforcement has been a huge success. And Bobby cheers.
Let the self gratification begin!
You’re killin’ me! {:0)
No, that's not the issue -- unless you're now creating a new one.
The issue WAS your question: "If we are well aware of the futility of prohibition (because of alcohol), why do we continue to believe in it?
And I responded, "The success or failure of prohibiting one drug has no relationship to the success or failure of prohibiting the other." I don't see how that response is non sequitur. Maybe you can clarify your accusation. Then again, maybe not.
"There is no functional difference between alcohol and marijuana. Prohibiting one and not the other is inconsistent and irrational. Do you agree or disagree?"
Talk about non sequitur! Who's discussing marijuana? The subject is drugs. All drugs. It's a War on Drugs not a War on Marijuana.
Some drugs are legal, some are legal and available by prescription, and some are illegal. Now that may look inconsistent and irrational to you, but that's the system.
"Would you suggest that we institute capital punishment for people who smoke pot?"
Hey, you're the one who thinks drug use should be zero in order to justify prohibiting it. So you tell me. We may need to go further than that and do summary executions in the street to accomplish your goal.
"Murder impinges upon the equal rights of another individual. Therefore, it is a proper function of the state to prohibit it."
Meaning futile laws that prohibit activity that harms others are perfectly acceptable to you, but futile laws that prohibit activity that doesn't harm others must be repealed. And that makes sense to you?
"You say "correct," indicating that it was not a direct rebuttal, but then you repeat that it is. Which is it?"
You made two different assertions;
A) "it is not a proper function of government to regulate what we ingest" (your original assertion).
B) "it is improper for the state to regulate what we ingest" (your second assertion).
I responded to, and thoroughly refuted, "A".
"Whether or not I choose to ingest any particular substance for any particular reason"
We have no laws against ingesting drugs, so feel free to ingest to your heart's content. Possessing, selling, transporting, and manufacturing, yes. Doing any of those has a substantial effect on Congress' interstate regulatory efforts -- per the U.S. Supreme Court. That would affect the public welfare.
"so long as it does not directly impinge on the equal rights of others"
Whoa! Since when are our laws supposed to be limited to activity that impinges on the equal rights of others? Who says?
"whether regulation of commerce includes prohibition is arguable"
Thomas Jefferson used the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" to prohibit trade with Europe in 1807 (Jefferson's Embargo). A few years earlier, he used the power to "regulate commerce with the Indian tribes" to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the Indians.
Interesting to note that his Secretary of State at the time was James Madison, the man who wrote the Commerce Clause. You would think that he would have said something like, "Uh, Tom. When I wrote 'to regulate commerce' I didn't mean that you could prohibit commerce".
Since we have no record of him saying that, I'm just going to assume that "to regulate" includes "to prohibit". As did the U.S. Supreme Court in a number of cases.
And I responded, "The success or failure of prohibiting one drug has no relationship to the success or failure of prohibiting the other."
Do you really want your answer to be that it is acceptable for our laws to be irrational? That is what you are arguing. The rational person would conclude that prohibition of alcohol was ultimately futile and caused more problems than it solved. The irrational person would conclude that it should be attempted again on some other drug. When one repeatedly performs the same action while expecting a different outcome, that person is insane. Are you arguing in favor of insanity? I didn't think so, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you offered a non sequitur.
Talk about non sequitur! Who's discussing marijuana? The subject is drugs. All drugs. It's a War on Drugs not a War on Marijuana.
Cherry-picking. I used marijuana as an example. Alcohol is a drug. How is it consistent and rational to prohibit one drug and not another?
Some drugs are legal, some are legal and available by prescription, and some are illegal. Now that may look inconsistent and irrational to you, but that's the system.
That just happens to be what we are debating. If you can't defend it any better than by resorting to, "that's just the way it is," then you need to withdraw.
Hey, you're the one who thinks drug use should be zero in order to justify prohibiting it. So you tell me. We may need to go further than that and do summary executions in the street to accomplish your goal.
Obfuscation. You began this line by comparing drug use with murder.
Meaning futile laws that prohibit activity that harms others are perfectly acceptable to you, but futile laws that prohibit activity that doesn't harm others must be repealed. And that makes sense to you?
Perfect sense. Laws that prohibit behavior are ultimately futile. But you are attempting to frame the argument in terms not offered. The futility of the law is not the sole reason for keeping it or dispensing with it.
You made two different assertions;
No, I didn't. In common usage "government" and "the state" are interchangeable. When referring to the government of one of the American states, common usage would be, "state government" or something in context. It is not a proper function of any government to regulate what we ingest. You have not refuted anything.
We have no laws against ingesting drugs, so feel free to ingest to your heart's content.
One must possess something to ingest it, so your response is ridiculous. However, since you choose to cherry-pick the wording of my responses, it is not a function of government to regulate what I possess for ingestion, so long as it does not impinge on the equal rights of others.
Doing any of those has a substantial effect on Congress' interstate regulatory efforts -- per the U.S. Supreme Court. That would affect the public welfare.
First we are not solely talking about federal drug laws. Second, are you offering that the sole intent of federal drug laws is regulation of interstate commerce? That is ridiculous. The intent of all drug laws is nanny statism. The intent of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce is to prevent trade wars between the states. Third, the regulation of interstate commerce has nothing to do with the public welfare, nor does the regulation of drug use.
Whoa! Since when are our laws supposed to be limited to activity that impinges on the equal rights of others? Who says?
Almost every one of the Founders. That is the basis of our form of government. If you are unaware of this, I suggest you do some research on it before you continue to insist that our form of government is fascist authoritarianism.
I don't consider the laws in question to be irrational. The Controlled Substances Act with its drug evaluation factors and drug schedules is quite rational.
"How is it consistent and rational to prohibit one drug and not another?"
Moreso than your saying if one drug is legal then they should all be legal. To be consistent.
"If you can't defend it any better than by resorting to, "that's just the way it is," then you need to withdraw."
If you can't challenge it any better than by resorting to, "if alcohol is legal then all drugs should be legal to be consistent", then you need to withdraw.
"The futility of the law is not the sole reason for keeping it or dispensing with it."
I couldn't have said it better.
"In common usage "government" and "the state" are interchangeable"
Correct. I objected to you changing your statement from the "proper function of government" to "improper for".
"It is not a proper function of any government to regulate what we ingest"
It is the function of government to do this and it is proper. You can argue that the government shouldn't be regulating this, fine. But since this is what the citizens want, and it's constitutional, it is the proper function of government to implement it through their police power.
"it is not a function of government to regulate what I possess for ingestion"
So we're supposed to believe you when you say the drugs in your possession are for you to ingest? They're not going to be sold to children? They're not going to be shipped interstate? Gosh, do you promise?
"First we are not solely talking about federal drug laws."
I am. I merely assumed that you agree each state has the police power to pass their own drug laws without question.
Maybe you don't agree. Forget the federal drug laws for a second. Are you saying each state does not have the power to prohibit some or all recreational drugs within the state? Is there some question in your mind about this? Is there some point you wish to debate in this area?
"Second, are you offering that the sole intent of federal drug laws is regulation of interstate commerce?"
If you want to know Congress' intent, read Section 801, Findings, in the Controlled Substances Act. Congress uses the power of the Commerce Clause to regulate the interstate commerce of these drugs.
"The intent of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce is to prevent trade wars between the states."
That was the original intent, yes. Are you saying that's the sole intent? That the Commerce Clause can only be used to prevent trade wars between the states?
It seems to me that it would have been written that way if that was the sole intent. But regulating commerce among the states was lumped right in with regulating commerce with Foreign nations and the Indian tribes.
The Founding Fathers made no distinction. Why are you?
"That is the basis of our form of government."
The basis, maybe. But certainly not the limit. I doubt the laws that existed in 1776 were limited to activities that impinged on the equal rights of others. I seem to recall reading some rather silly laws written during that period.
He finds it gratifying to thrash you, as you apparently find being thrashed a gratifying experience,
LOL....not a chance of being thrashed by him or any other drug warrior.
Kicked ass in CJ, KC, Dane, and all the rest.
They’re gone; I’m here.
RP just hasn’t resorted to making allegations if any of us being child abusers, pornographers, drug abusers, or satan worshippers.
You either approve of WoD or you don’t.
You either want the staus quo or you don’t.
You either believe that government owns people or you don’t.
I don’t.
Do you?
"-- The utterly insufferable arrogance of power, and the need for it, is an absolute fact of the human condition.
-- Nothing can be done about it. -
Just as the poor shall always be with us, so shall we have these infinitely shrewd imbeciles who live to lay down their version of 'the law' to others. --"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.