A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!		NoodleFood : RSS Feed | via E-mail | Recent Comments | Archives NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) | via Feed Reader | via E-mail Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish | PhiloFiles | Explore Atlas Shrugged OList Mailing Lists | FIRM | FRO | Secular Government

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 Against the Drug War By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM An old student of mine recently wrote me asking my views about the drug war. Here's what I wrote in reply: Like you, I'd like to live in a society of rational, productive, and interesting people -- as opposed to stoners, addicts, and the like. However, I would argue that drug prohibition actually undermines that goal, as well as endangers innocent people. You simply cannot force people to be rational, productive, and interesting people -- and the costs of attempting to do so are enormous. Drug prohibition creates more serious drug problems. Due to the legal risks of using drugs, people are more inclined to seek stronger and shorter highs. That, plus the unknown nature of most street drugs, promotes overdoses, addiction, and other medical problems. As the price of drugs rises hugely with the risks, drug addicts turn to stealing to support their habit. Moreover, the scum of the earth have a strong incentive to become drug dealers. Then, because those drug dealers operate outside the law, gang warfare becomes a way of doing business. Ordinary people simply attempting to live their lives are caught in the crossfire. Even with all those problems, the drug war has been completely ineffective: illegal drugs are as plentiful and easily available as ever. We have no reason to think that greater brutality in the drug war -- like executing drug dealers -- will make much of a difference. (Such people often have little regard for their own lives, I think.) Plus, the costs of an overzealous police force are quite severe. No-knock raids on wrong houses are quite common these days. People are routinely killed as a result -- not just innocent residents but also police officers. (The homeowner often reasonably thinks himself to be in the midst of a violent home invasion, and so shoots a police officer.) The result is that ordinary, law-abiding people are abused and endangered by the police, rather than protected by them. Moreover, once you accept the principle that the state ought to force people to do or not do something for the sake of some supposedly greater social good, then that's the end of all individual liberty. Someone can always make a case against anything that a person might do. So if a majority of people think that the world would be a better place if you didn't read certain controversial books, watch certain violent television programs, marry certain kinds of people, and so on, then laws could be passed and law-breakers hunted down. The world would be a much poorer -- and more frightful -- place as a result. Even if drug prohibition could stamp out drug use, I would regard it as too much of a cost to bear. However, given that drug prohibition makes the drug problem worse, I think the only sensible thing to do is repeal it. Sure, just like with alcohol, gambling, sex, food, and every other pleasure, some people will abuse drugs. They would be welcome to ruin their own lives, but in a capitalist society no one else would be obliged to associate with them, pay for their medical care, or whatnot. Absent some danger to others, like driving drunk or high, the law would not intervene. They could quietly destroy themselves, if they pleased. You could avoid such people entirely -- unless you chose to associate with or otherwise help them. All of that is probably more than you needed or wanted to hear from me! However, you might find the following writings from the Cato Institute on the drug war of interest. I don't agree with Cato on lots of things, but I think they're pretty good on this issue. Labels: Law, Politics Share |    E-mail Diana Hsieh     PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)   Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader   via E-mail Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3)   via Feed Reader   via E-mail

Comments
	Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 2:58:00 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: Jerry E-mail: jerryanomo(at)gmail.com URL: http://ergosum.wordpress.com It was a delight reading this beautifully reasoned argument. You started out effectively by stating a non-debatable position. Then, you cover the different angles of the issue: the moral argument, social repercussions, cost-benefit analysis, and more. Then, you anticipate certain objections, draw analogies, and resolve the objections effectively. Thanks.
	Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 7:06:59 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: Chris E-mail: admin(at)fitnessfail.com URL: http://www.fitnessfail.com Well said. From a purely pragmatic point of view, the cost of the prison complex (that we all pay for, and that is overwhelmingly used to house non-violent drug offenders) is pretty staggering as well. I've found that this angle can be used to convince people who aren't sold on the philosophical idea of free markets. Just balancing the cost of prohibition vs treatment (even if we pay for both) is a no brainer. As an aside, I discovered your blog when you linked to rant of mine (about models, athletes and standards of beauty) several months ago. Thanks for the exposure!
	Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 7:15:51 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: William H Stoddard E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile That's a good clear presentation, and covers most of the angles. There is only one further nuance to the argument that I would have added: the corrupting influence of the illegal drug trade on government itself. There are far too many cases of police officers getting paid off by drug dealers, or diverting seized drugs to unofficial resale back onto the streets. A situation where it's financially rewarding for the police to break the law is not good for maintaining a law-abiding society.
	Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 11:20:42 mst Comment ID: #4 Name: C Andrew E-mail: ca4papen(at)mindspring.com Good additional point, William. For instance, Alcohol prohibition in the the 20's gave us, for the first time, nationwide organized crime. And the Kennedys. But I repeat myself. C. Andrew
	Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 11:28:35 mst Comment ID: #5 Name: Kevin Clark I have a number of comments on this. 1) Diana's response was thorough and well laid out but I question this: "Even if drug prohibition could stamp out drug use, I would regard it as too much of a cost to bear." Doesn't this grant legitimacy to utilitarianism? Shouldn't the statement be "that even if drug prohibition could stamp out drug use it would still be wrong because it would violate individual rights?" I don't see why a cost/benefit analysis should be used here. 2) Also, when discussing the drug war, many advocates will argue that using drugs are irrational but should be allowed anyway. But does every instance of recreational drug use have to be irrational? Can there be no occasional use of some drugs as a legitimate way to achieve pleasure? There is such a thing as rational alcohol usage. I would think the same of some narcotics. 3) Lastly, when I think of the drug war I think of the speech by Floyd Ferris where he says (paraphrased): "do you think we want people to follow those laws. We want people to break those laws so as to create a nation full of law breakers." That's is what drug laws do and thus they open the door up for a massive expansion of government. So much of today's criminal law revolves around enforcing drug laws. Think of RICO or even of The Patriot Act. They all have horrendous asset forfeiture provisions. The war against drugs is the war against the American people. Not to mention that it is largely motivated by a religious world view.
	Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 13:14:59 mst Comment ID: #6 Name: Park Jennings E-mail: ceasar911(at)yahoo.com I have a few things to say about the effect that the "War on (some) Drugs" has had on our legal, justice, and prison system. Something like 60-70% of all incarcerated felons are there for drug crimes and related offenses (felony possession of a firearm, when the prior felony was a drug crime, is particularly common). The costs of enforcing, prosecuting, and incarcerating drug crimes have created a giant strain on our legal system (not to mention the problems with extracting hundred of billions of dollars from the citizenry to pay for it). The number of cases the result from drug enforcement and the concomitant gang/organized crime overburden our prosecutors, public defenders, court system and local law enforcement; for example, California prisons are at **200%** capacity. Furthermore, a civil case will now normally take 3-5 years to get to trial because of all the criminal trials (criminal trials have priority and "bump" civil trials back). This impedes not only the ability of our society to maintain law and order, enforcing the moral laws against actual crimes (murder, rape, etc), but seriously hampers the ability of our legal system to efficiently and justly deal with civil cases such as torts and contracts. Never mind the fiasco of current criminal law, this impedes the ability of every citizen to enforce their basic property rights. Lastly, the "damage" to society in destroying neighborhoods that come under near-anarchic gang rule is nothing short of appalling. Thousands of people die every year in gang battles (and the gangs exist solely by the illegality of drugs), and the "gangster" culture fosters secondary crimes and threatens normal, law-abiding citizens. Lastly, police are indoctrinated into a paramilitary, cops-versus-citizens mindset that undermines liberty and the rule of law (what sort of society do we become when we send masked men with machine guns and body armor to break into the homes of people suspected of victimless crimes?). Pro-liberty and rational individuals must oppose the current legal system of outlawing some drugs because it is deleterious to the basic ability of society to enforce rights, and even codifies the violation of rights. It's just wrong.
	Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 17:13:51 mst Comment ID: #7 Name: Adam Reed E-mail: AdamReed(at)alum.MIT.edu URL: http://borntoidentify.blogspot.com/ Diana, Thank you for an excellent summary of the adverse effects of drug laws on social relations. There is, however, another set of effects that affect the lives of individuals more directly, and that is the impact of drug prohibitions on the treatment of disabling pain in the practice of medicine. I'm aware of it from experience - after the onset of my sciatica, physicians, working under regulations designed to prevent diversion of prescription opiates into the drug trade, were for the most part limited to prescribing pain medications that can only be taken to provide relief for a small fraction of the time - typically not more than 20 hours per week. I was disabled by extreme pain the rest of the time. Only when a surgeon with the standing to buck the regulations prescribed a time-release opiate, did I discover that the months of torture and disability from pain were completely unnecessary. Were it not for the drug wars, I would have been able to live a normal life, except for taking pills (and some tolerable residual pain) from the onset of sciatica until corrective surgery. And I found that I had no problem stopping the opiates when I no longer needed them - for me, at least, the supposed addictive action of time-release opiates turned out to be a myth.
	Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 19:25:21 mst Comment ID: #8 Name: William H Stoddard E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile Kevin, I take the point you are making when you say, "Diana's response was thorough and well laid out but I question this: "Even if drug prohibition could stamp out drug use, I would regard it as too much of a cost to bear." Doesn't this grant legitimacy to utilitarianism? Shouldn't the statement be "that even if drug prohibition could stamp out drug use it would still be wrong because it would violate individual rights?" I don't see why a cost/benefit analysis should be used here." However, I think there is another way of looking at it. Remember that the moral/practical dichotomy is fallacious. If something is morally wrong, then it will not work practically. If you adopt a policy that violates individual rights (ethical argument), then it will also have harmful consequences (practical consequences); indeed, it is to avoid those harmful consequences that individual rights are neededâ€"not out of abstract respect for some purely moral principle. But the harmful consequences of a policy can be described as "costs" of that policy, in perfectly normal English, without embracing a utilitarian theory of cost/benefit analysis. I think, in fact, both that drug prohibition violates individual rights, and that it has destructive effects on people's lives; and every one of those destructive effects can be traced to the results of a violation of individual rights.
	Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 19:59:23 mst Comment ID: #9 Name: Kevin Clark William, Oh yes, I see. Now that I have reread Diana's statement, I see that the use of the word 'cost' did not imply utilitarianism. Thanks for pointing that out.
Post Your Comment
Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome. The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays. To weed out spammers: 3 plus 7 equals 3871891822244542624