Sunday, August 03, 2008

Decriminalizing Drugs

I was thinking about the Drug War the other day, because, well, I’m a dork.  Over the years, I have come around to the position that the government should decriminalize most, if not all, of the drugs that are currently banned.  Anything that could kill you in a single dose (not overdose), for example, should remain banned. 

My reasoning is really on two fronts.  First, unless there is a compelling reason, I don’t think that government should be in the business of restricting personal freedom.  The choice to snort crap up your nose or inject poison in your veins is incredibly stupid, but we have a right to be stupid. 

Second, it has become clear that the consequences of trying to enforce a ban outweighs the benefits.  The ban on drugs makes the potential for profit enormous.  This naturally attracts criminal enterprises to try to capture those profits.  It also causes rival criminal enterprises to engage in massive amounts of violence and criminal activity necessary to realize and protect those profits. 

I could go on, but that’s the basic argument. 

But while I think that most drugs should be decriminalized, there will be other consequences that should be weighed.  As I see it, here are the pros and cons of decriminalizing drugs.

Pro: Without the profit motive, crooks will look elsewhere to make money and it is likely that violence will decrease. 

Con: Without the profit motive, crooks will look elsewhere to make money and the more sophisticated of them will probably move into securities fraud and other white collar crimes.  While these type of crimes lack the violence of the drug trade, their damaging effects can be very far-reaching.

Pro: The cost of enforcing the ban on drugs will no longer be necessary.  I doubt that this will actually result in a decrease in government spending, but we can hope.

Con: More people will become drug addicts.  Some argue that without the dealers pushing drugs for profit and the rebellion factor, that decriminalizing drugs would not result in an increase in drug use.  I think that argument ignores human behavior.  If people can get high for much cheaper and without the threat of going to jail, more people are likely to use drugs.  For evidence of this I point to two examples.  During Vietnam, heroin addiction became a major problem.  Some estimates are that up to 30% of the soldiers were addicts which was MUCH higher than the rate in the U.S.  Why?  Because they could get a high for $1 there while the same high cost $40 in New York.  The other example is obvious: booze.  Booze is legal and cheap in America.  The result is far more drunks and alcoholics (alcoholics go to meetings :rim shot:) in America than cocaine, crack, heroin, oxycontin, etc. users.  It’s pretty obvious that decriminalizing drugs will result in more addicts.  With the inevitable result of more addicts, one must weigh the impact on the American economy. 

Pro: The drugs could be regulated and monitored for safety (relatively). 

Con: Government would almost certainly begin placing confiscatory taxes on them (like cigarettes), thus driving up prices and recreating the motive for a black market (like cigarettes). 

————-

Again, I do think that most drugs should be decriminalized.  But the result would not be entirely positive.  There would be consequences.

(7) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1113 hrs
Culture + Politics + Politics - General

  1. I disagree with you.
    First, you assume that the crooks will make illegal money commiting white collar crime.  Well, maybe the upper level, smarter criminals might, but the lower level street thugs will resort to robberies, burgularies and other violent crimes.
    2nd, it will increase drug use and the dosage will also increase, in my opinion.  We don’t need more drug imparied people driving or working in dangerous jobs.  We already have a bad enough time dealing with drunk drivers.
    We will need more drug rehab centers and it won’t eliminate the criminal aspect.  So government deals the drugs and put taxes on it.  The criminals will then sell it for less, you know, free enterprise.
    Meth doesn’t kill in 1 dose, sniffing glue doesn’t kill in 1 dose, but the damage these drugs do is horrible.  Should we legalize meth and sniffing paint? 
    I think it’s a bad idea.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2008 at 1323 hrs


  2. First, there should be no decriminalization until there are objective standards by which we can determine intoxication.  We have it for alcohol.  We don’t have, IIRC, for THC, meth, cocaine, etc.  Short of that, we should just say that ANY amount found in the bloodstream is evidence of intoxication.

    Second, if we decriminalize there should be NO disability benefits for drug addiction.  We will not finance you being a waste of society.  You are an addict and don’t get help on your own—tough luck.  Make your living however you may. But you won’t be getting SSI benefits as they do now.  I once worked with a guy who was listed as disabled because of drug addiction.  That creep didn’t actually have to hold that job because he was getting SSI benefits.  True, he couldn’t live on those benefits alone.  But I have stayed clean all my life and I don’t get rewarded for it.  We need to reward staying clean, not getting addicted.

    Posted by Jim the Fireman on August 03, 2008 at 1411 hrs


  3. Dan,

    Fair point, but robberies and such don’t offer nearly the profit of selling drugs and the risks are much higher.  It shouldn’t take long to weed them off the streets.  I suspect that the more petty crooks would look for something similar - like selling black market cigarettes. 

    Jim,

    Agreed.  If we did decriminalize drugs, we would have to revamp our civil and criminal codes to deal with it.  And each drug should be examined independently and standards set.

    Posted by Owen on August 03, 2008 at 1421 hrs


  4. Uhhhnnnnhhh…

    You’re toying with public policy issues, which usually mean ‘the greater good,’ and are generally morality-based.  And as you likely know, you’re copying the Libertarian playbook on this one.

    For the moment, let’s be realistic. “H”, coke, morphine, and all other illegal substances (except maryjane) are illegal because they are extremely deleterious (quickly) to the user, unlike alcohol and tobacco.  Generally, the user becomes severely disabled or dead in a relatively short period of time—<10 years.

    Public policy is in play b/c there actually IS an implicit or explicit obligation for Gummint(s) to prevent members of the polity from self-destruction.  Suicide is illegal, albeit almost un-preventable, on the same foundation.

    Reducing the equasion to simple economics is, literally, to price human lives—and you don’t want to go there if you prefer to hold to a morals-based society.

    And of course, it is impossible to calculate the effect on others:  families, friends, employers, co-workers, etc. before the fact.  I submit that calculations based only on eliminating the DEA are seriously flawed.

    It may be interesting to debate whether maryjane should be legal.  While it is deleterious, it seems (repeat: SEEMS) to be similar to alcohol and tobacco—the degeneration is mild and long-term, (with the usual exceptions, as with alcohol.)

    But even then, you are arguing that public policy should allow another proven intoxicant into the general population—meaning that DUI incidents, fatal and not, will increase.  Do you have any idea how much?  And what will THAT do to your insurance premiums and Social Security costs?

    Best be careful with this, O.

    Posted by dad29 on August 03, 2008 at 1838 hrs


  5. Dan,

    On the idea that decriminalizing will increase robberies… that’s not necessarily bad believe it or not.  Right now, because there is no direct victim in drug crime (ie both the dealer and user are viewed as criminals), it invites police corruption.

    When the police discover drug crime, they can choose to arrest the offending parties, or they can blackmail either side or both.  The drug user and dealer have little choice to go along, otherwise they’d go to jail.

    In the case of a typical robbery, there is little chance for blackmail because there is an actual victim who can go to police superiors and report on police who are not doing their job.

    And Dad29… on the front of how drugs affect others… two arguments there.  First, the war on drugs has had just a deleterious affect on communities, with large numbers of fathers being thrown in jail where they can’t be with families (don’t think that hasn’t affected black neighborhoods harder).

    Second, I would argue that there is no better solution to drug addiction than family involvement, rather than jail.  What you see as a downside, I see as a possible solution.  Currently, because of fear of jail, there is a real disincentive for families to really become involved, or for users to seek out help from families.

    Posted by Nick on August 04, 2008 at 1054 hrs


  6. How have they handled it in the Netherlands? Aren’t all drugs legal there? What have the done right/wrong? what can we learn from them?

    Posted by Matt on August 04, 2008 at 1138 hrs


  7. Nick, your response is ....confusing.

    ‘Fathers…are in jail….because of drugs.’  What drugs?  Maryjane?  Nope.  So it’s coke, or worse.  Precisely what sort of “father” is a coke-head?  And you CERTAINLY are not referring to the inner cities, where illegitimacy now runs 65%++.

    ‘Fear of jail…keeps families from being involved…’

    What does that mean, Nick?  You mean to tell me that a wife will NOT try to intervene with her husband’s drug problem because SHE will go to jail?  Or HE will go to jail?

    Calling the cops is not the ONLY way to stop drug abuse, Nick.

    Try again.

    Posted by dad29 on August 04, 2008 at 1650 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.