It really pains me to write the title of the thread. Drugs have dangers and nobody wants to encourage anyone to try heroin or crack cocaine, but the unintended consequences of criminal prohibition inflict far greater costs to society than the costs inflicted by the very drugs. Drugs should be legal exactly because they do have dangers and should therefore be regulated, but criminal prohibition is a total absence of regulation. 75% of Americans think the Drug War is an utter failure, but only 10% support legalizing all drugs. Cognitive dissonance is an Amazonian femme fatale. It’s a very cold dark truth but the legalization of even heroin, crack cocaine, crystal meth, ecstasy, along with some kind of regulatory framework, is the inevitable logical conclusion towards a safer and healthier functioning society. It’s not a perfect solution but we live in a perpetually imperfect world.
Frame the issue right!
http://guide.cred.columbia.edu/images/illo_framing.gif
Drug laws for mere consumption, possession, and paraphernalia violate the rule of law.
Frame the issue right!
http://guide.cred.columbia.edu/images/illo_framing.gif
Legalization isn’t the question
Unfortunately, most drug policy discussions today revolve around imagined potential gains or problems resulting from legalization of certain drugs. And because of the politics involved, we often really have no choice but to play these ridiculous games. But, in fact, it’s very much the wrong question.
The actual question is criminalization. And the answer is “no.”
When you look at the issue properly, you see that what we need to discuss is correcting the massive wrongness of criminalization.
Those who support prohibition have never been required to actually put forth coherent and defendable justifications for criminalization. Instead, they get to claim criminalization as the status quo and merely object to minor details or uncertainties regarding “legalization.” They actually act as if prohibition is the default in our country, which is far from the truth.
And so we get caught up in completely bizarre and meaningless disputes. I was struck, for example, by the utter glee with which Mark Kleiman gloats over his group’s dismantling of the claim that marijuana is the number one cash crop in the U.S. Turns out, according to their calculations, that it’s merely in the top 15.
Other than from a purely academic perspective, who the hell cares? It’s presented as if that is somehow some kind of big blow to legalization, which makes very little sense, but fits within the “gotcha” approach to protecting the status quo, where unless the absolute furthest value of each and every argument mentioned by some legalization activist somewhere is 100% verifiable, then legalization must be flawed.
http://www.drugwarrant.com/2012/08/legalization-isnt-the-question/
Public health has no authority in criminal laws. There is the libertarian harm principle by John Stuart Mill that “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.” But as Tucker Carlson once told libertarian Reason magazine, “Libertarianism cuts against human nature pretty dramatically. Half of it is appealing, the half that says ‘I can do pretty much whatever I want.’ But the other half, that other people can be allowed to pretty much do whatever they want, even if they’re annoying to me and on the wrong course as far as I’m concerned, that’s deeply unappealing to people. People innately intrinsically want to control other people’s behavior. They figure all sorts of justifications why ‘Oh I know best,’ ‘Don’t do that, you’ll get hurt,’ ‘I’ve done that before, that’s a bad idea,’ or ‘If you were only smart enough or as smart as I am, you would see this.’ Whatever justification they offer, they have a natural desire, almost all of them, to control other people, and that’s contrary to the basic tenant of libertarianism. So it’s very easy for people to say ‘Oh I’m a libertarian,’ ‘Oh yeah I think everybody should do what they want,’ meaning me.” Thus, we get paternalism (or parentalism), the opposite of libertarianism, the “policy or practice on the part of people in positions of authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to them in the subordinates’ supposed best interest.” To quote Albert Einstein, “The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.”Unfortunately, most drug policy discussions today revolve around imagined potential gains or problems resulting from legalization of certain drugs. And because of the politics involved, we often really have no choice but to play these ridiculous games. But, in fact, it’s very much the wrong question.
The actual question is criminalization. And the answer is “no.”
When you look at the issue properly, you see that what we need to discuss is correcting the massive wrongness of criminalization.
Those who support prohibition have never been required to actually put forth coherent and defendable justifications for criminalization. Instead, they get to claim criminalization as the status quo and merely object to minor details or uncertainties regarding “legalization.” They actually act as if prohibition is the default in our country, which is far from the truth.
And so we get caught up in completely bizarre and meaningless disputes. I was struck, for example, by the utter glee with which Mark Kleiman gloats over his group’s dismantling of the claim that marijuana is the number one cash crop in the U.S. Turns out, according to their calculations, that it’s merely in the top 15.
Other than from a purely academic perspective, who the hell cares? It’s presented as if that is somehow some kind of big blow to legalization, which makes very little sense, but fits within the “gotcha” approach to protecting the status quo, where unless the absolute furthest value of each and every argument mentioned by some legalization activist somewhere is 100% verifiable, then legalization must be flawed.
http://www.drugwarrant.com/2012/08/legalization-isnt-the-question/
Drug laws for mere consumption, possession, and paraphernalia violate the rule of law.
Marijuana Legalization: Sometimes Violations of International Law Are Cause for Celebration
There are some things that are wrong in themselves (malum in se) and things that are wrong because they are prohibited (malum prohibitum). But when it comes to drug laws, fighting something that is prohibited has resulted in widespread acts that are wrong in themselves and that breach basic legal principles - the rule of law.
The racially discriminatory nature of drug laws is common knowledge. Some governments rely on the international regime to justify executions of people convicted of drug offences (in violation of international law, in fact). Police violence, mass incarceration, denial of due process are routine in States’ pursuit of the general obligation the US now breaches.
The international legal arguments about the Colorado and Washington results will certainly arise. They must, though it will likely be in the rather closed and stale environment of UN drugs diplomacy. When that happens [what] must emerge is that these ballots are a victory for the rule of law even as they bring the US into conflict with the drugs conventions. Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice, not to mention democracy, have won out over arbitrary and unreasonable controls on human behaviour.
Ending the war on drugs, moreover, will be a victory for international human rights law. It will be a victory for international law itself - for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for the achievement of international development agreements and improved health - all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition. Colorado and Washington have taken us one step closer. For that we should all celebrate.
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2012/11/marijuana-legalisation-sometimes.html
Harvard University economics professor and Cato Institute senior fellow Jeffrey Miron authored a comprehensive report published in the Journal of Economics Perspectives called “The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition” (1995) which concluded, “The existing evidence relevant to drug policy is far from complete. Given the evidence, however, our conclusion is that a free market in drugs is likely to be a far superior policy to current policies of drug prohibition. A free market might lead to a substantial increase in the number of persons who use drugs and possibly to a significant increase in the total amount of drugs consumed. But that policy would also produce substantial reductions in the harmful effects of drug use on third parties through reduced violence, reduced property crime and a number of other channels. On net, the existing evidence suggests the social costs of drug prohibition are vastly greater than its benefits.” In this video clip he argues:There are some things that are wrong in themselves (malum in se) and things that are wrong because they are prohibited (malum prohibitum). But when it comes to drug laws, fighting something that is prohibited has resulted in widespread acts that are wrong in themselves and that breach basic legal principles - the rule of law.
The racially discriminatory nature of drug laws is common knowledge. Some governments rely on the international regime to justify executions of people convicted of drug offences (in violation of international law, in fact). Police violence, mass incarceration, denial of due process are routine in States’ pursuit of the general obligation the US now breaches.
The international legal arguments about the Colorado and Washington results will certainly arise. They must, though it will likely be in the rather closed and stale environment of UN drugs diplomacy. When that happens [what] must emerge is that these ballots are a victory for the rule of law even as they bring the US into conflict with the drugs conventions. Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice, not to mention democracy, have won out over arbitrary and unreasonable controls on human behaviour.
Ending the war on drugs, moreover, will be a victory for international human rights law. It will be a victory for international law itself - for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for the achievement of international development agreements and improved health - all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition. Colorado and Washington have taken us one step closer. For that we should all celebrate.
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2012/11/marijuana-legalisation-sometimes.html
In that black market, a bunch of really unfortunate things happen. In a black market, we see far more violence then we would see if drugs were legal and transacted in a legal market. Why, because black market suppliers and consumers for any good can’t resolve their differences in opinion and disputes with lawyers, they do so with guns, because they are not allowed access to the legal dispute system. Prohibition generates corruption and is especially obvious in developing countries that are suppliers of drugs because, again, the people in the drug industry can’t have ballot initiatives or lobby Congress in the standard way most businesses do. So they engage in bribes to jurors, police, judges, and so on.
Prohibition generates income-generating crime. Theft, prostitution, and so on, by forcing the price of drugs to be much higher. Prohibition lowers quality control, so the people who continue to use drugs, despite prohibition, are clearly worse off. They don’t know what doses they are getting, they don’t know what adulterants might be in the drugs, and of course they face the risk of going to jail, which is one of the worst things which can happen to you, far worse than most kinds of simple use of even the strong illegal drugs.
We get greater spread of HIV because of prohibition. Under prohibition, we don’t give people easy access to clean needles, we force the price of drugs to be much higher, so people have a strong incentive to inject a bigger bang for the buck. Much of the spread of HIV in the last 20 years in the US has been the result of intravenous drug use of sharing dirty needles that is directly the result of prohibition.
Because of prohibition, we have limitations on medical research, we have limitations on civil liberties. All sorts of extremely aggressive policies such as knocking down doors and no-knock warrants that sometimes put innocent people at great risk and, more generally, infringe on reasonable notions of civil liberties. We’ve created havoc in many supplier countries because we have pushed them to try to enforce the drug prohibition that we think is the good policy.
Prohibition generates income-generating crime. Theft, prostitution, and so on, by forcing the price of drugs to be much higher. Prohibition lowers quality control, so the people who continue to use drugs, despite prohibition, are clearly worse off. They don’t know what doses they are getting, they don’t know what adulterants might be in the drugs, and of course they face the risk of going to jail, which is one of the worst things which can happen to you, far worse than most kinds of simple use of even the strong illegal drugs.
We get greater spread of HIV because of prohibition. Under prohibition, we don’t give people easy access to clean needles, we force the price of drugs to be much higher, so people have a strong incentive to inject a bigger bang for the buck. Much of the spread of HIV in the last 20 years in the US has been the result of intravenous drug use of sharing dirty needles that is directly the result of prohibition.
Because of prohibition, we have limitations on medical research, we have limitations on civil liberties. All sorts of extremely aggressive policies such as knocking down doors and no-knock warrants that sometimes put innocent people at great risk and, more generally, infringe on reasonable notions of civil liberties. We’ve created havoc in many supplier countries because we have pushed them to try to enforce the drug prohibition that we think is the good policy.
