Posted on 02/06/2009 9:15:57 AM PST by bassmaner
And then President Obama, and then George W. Bush, and then Bill Clinton . . .
Michael Phelps, the aquatic icon who won eight gold medals at the 2008 Olympics, has violated the law. When a photograph of him smoking a bongful of marijuana was published, he admitted the crime. The same crime for which the better part of a million people were arrested last year.
Shouldn’t Phelps be charged? Along with President Obama and his two predecessors, all of whom, it seems, used illegal drugs? If not, perhaps it is time to have a serious debate about the drug laws.
Of course, Michael Phelps immediately apologized for his poor judgment. Attention turned to his sponsors, since their contracts include the usual moral clauses, which protect their investment in celebrities who behave foolishly, if not actually immorally. Happily for Phelps’s bank account, some of his big-money backers, including Speedo, Hilton, and Omega, accepted his apology. Subway and Visa haven’t been talking, but don’t look like they are going to jump. Kellogg’s, so far in the minority, announced it would drop Phelps.
But if marijuana use is so horrid as to warrant criminalization, why are we wasting time discussing whether Phelps will be able to keep his endorsement deals? Shouldn’t he be prosecuted—just like millions of other Americans, whose lives have been ruined by criminal convictions for smoking pot?
In 2007, 872,721 Americans were arrested for marijuana violations, 775,138 of them for possession. Some number of the latter undoubtedly were caught growing or selling and were charged with lesser offenses, but, in any case, hundreds of thousands of Americans ended up in jail for doing precisely what Michael Phelps did: lighting up. Roughly three-quarters of those arrested for marijuana offenses were, like Phelps, under 30. With most of their lives ahead of them, they face the greatest harm from prosecution under the drug laws.
So why shouldn’t Phelps go to jail?
To ask the question is to answer it. While smoking pot may be a stupid thing to do for many reasons—risking adverse health effects, endangering endorsements, undermining Phelps’s status as a celebrity role model—he hurt no one but himself. He could have been photographed while drunk and stumbling out of a party, and it would have been no different. Bad press and angry sponsors would have forced an abject apology, and everyone would have moved on. Just like with his marijuana hit.
Of course, advocates of prohibition argue that illicit drugs are different. And so they are—mostly because their use is illegal, a situation that creates the most serious problems usually associated with drug use.
The arguments are old but clear. Whatever the law might say, the people have voted with their lungs: 95 million Americans over the age of 21 have smoked pot, 20 million have smoked in the last year, and 11 million use the drug regularly. It’s hard to believe that all of them, almost one-third of the U.S. population, are criminals who deserve jail time.
Moreover, the violence associated with drugs is principally from prohibition rather than use. Drunks are far more likely to commit (and be victims of) violent crimes than are users of marijuana. Prohibition-era Chicago offered a dramatic lesson in the impact of banning a widely used drug. That city’s violent era is being played out on a larger scale in Colombia and Mexico, where urban and rural communities have been overwhelmed with drug-gang violence.
The health arguments remain disputed, but the basic question is whether we live in a free society in which people can choose to engage in risky behavior. Cigarette smokers, hang gliders, and rock climbers all take risks that many others view as unacceptable. That’s no reason for arresting them.
And it’s pretty hard to argue that marijuana use will prevent Phelps from being productive. Most all of us probably remember pothead classmates who ended up wildly successful in their chosen careers. Will some people use to excess? Yes, just as some people drink too much, gamble too much, spend too much, and act irresponsibly in a multitude of other ways. Criminal law is not the answer.
Is Michael Phelps likely to go to jail? No, and for good reason. But for the same reason, the rest of us should not be arrested for smoking pot, either. Whether marijuana use is good or bad is not the issue. Short of engaging in behavior that directly threatens others, people should be left alone. That’s what a society grounded in individual liberty is—or at least should be—all about.
—Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to Pres. Ronald Reagan, he is the author of the forthcoming Leviathan Unchained: Washington’s Bipartisan Big Government Consensus.
See, you guys have just misunderstood me. I’m not really a mullah who wants to stone pot smokers. I just live in a decent neighborhood and I want it to stay that way.
Yes. And that's what I call Amsterdam Libertarianism. It's the fear of making judgments on the behavior of others. And it leads to everything you just stated.
You are assuming that there won't ever come a day when the liberals will deem that one of your activities should be made illegal and thus render you one of the "criminals" that should be jailed forever.
I just get a kick out people who are so cavalier about stealing another person's liberty. All the while sure in the knowledge that they don't live in a glass house. Please swear and aver that you have never broken a law or violated a regulation. Or else please report to your nearest skyscraper prison to begin serving your life sentence for your crimes no matter how petty and minor they may have been.
That would mean that the Netherlands is permissive on this issue, wouldn't it?
The "Amsterdam Libertarianism" you describe fails because it co-exists with a culture that has sacrificed itself on the altar of "diversity" and "multiculturalism". Because the Dutch are so steeped in the belief that their culture is no better or worse than any other, they have allowed Islamic hordes into their midst that will soon render their famed permissiveness extinct.
This is happening not because of their libertarianism; rather, it is the Left that is the catalyst for their demise. There are true libertarians in Holland, however, that want to retain the traditional easy-going Dutch lifestyle, yet want to confront and defeat the Left and Islamists: check out this guy, who currently is being perse-, er prosecuted by Dutch leftists for "hate speech" against Muslims.
“It’s the fear of making judgments on the behavior of others. And it leads to everything you just stated.”
You have it absolutely backwards. They’ve abdicated making decisions for themselves, giving the decision-making right and obligation to the state.
Conservatism is about INDIVIDUAL rights and INDIVIDUAL responsibility.
So do you want to negotiate whether or not to have prisons? What are you offering in return?
No.
Haven't been to D.C. either.
That funny?
Relatively, compared to the more restrictive laws of its neighbors, a fact which refutes your assertion.
Well, it's funny in that you seem compelled to make pronouncements on things you know nothing about.
Actually, it's more pathetic than funny.
Prisons should be around for those who pose a threat to society. I guess what we disagree on is the definition of what poses a threat to society. I’m not if favor of life sentences for all crimes as you proposed a few posts ago. Your post reminded me of Les Miserables, you would make a wonderful Monsieur DeMasi. Your screen name is interesting, do you purport to be a religious person??? A follower of Christ???
I think our differences of opinion on the issue of drug legalization stem from the malleable nature of the word "libertarian." There are libertarians on the Left and on the Right, and it's important that we recognize that. I stand with the libertarians on the Right (such as Geert) who advocate individual liberty. But I can't (and won't) stand with the libertarians on the Left who champion a society of wholesale permissiveness. As I said before in a previous post, there are certain agents of destruction that I would want prohibited in my community. And as you can see by my jumping into this thread, I'm not afraid to defend my position.
I think there is far more that we agree on (than disagree) about libertarianism. But the word is like a hydra: it has many heads.
Javert/Monsieur DeMasi, must proofread before hitting post.
I’m love Jesus.
I don’t really remember Less Miserables.
I was talking hypothetical. In my hypothetical situation there wouldn’t be as many criminals. Naturally, if we lifted the ban, those in prison would be let free under certain circumstances. Those in prison for crimes against the bureaucracy might be let free too. I wasn’t talking about tax cheats and the like.
I'll be honest. I seek truth in all things. But it's a highly elusive thing to find. I've participated on this thread because "I'm compelled to make pronouncements" on issues and ideas that might lead me to truth. Or at least some vestigial form of it.
But there's more. I've also considered everything that others have said on this thread. And I've responded to much of it. It's these types of philosophical challenges I relish.
Actually, it's more pathetic than funny.
And that's more funny than pathetic.
Then we are on the same side.
You are mistaken if you think Europe practices anything that comes within the same galaxy as "libertarianism." And pot is not "legal," technically, in the Netherlands. Pot use in the Netherlands is lower than it is in the US; the vast majority of people in the coffee shops are tourists.
And that's more funny than pathetic.
Glad I could amuse you.
Sorry the formating is off, but pot and hard drug use in the Netherlands is HALF that of the USA.
Social Indicator Comparison Year USA Netherlands
Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 36.9% 1 17.0% 2
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 5.4% 1 3.0% 2
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+) 2001 1.4% 1 0.4% 2
Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population 2002 701 3 100 4
Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros) 1998 €379 5 €223 5
Homicide rate per 100,000 population Average 1999-2001 5.56 6 1.51 6
Cleaner table here:
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67
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.