My thesis is simply this, government control of what could be a bustling private industry loses everyone other than criminals money, and wastes billions of taxpayer dollars enforcing laws that really don't constitute crimes. I see the drug laws of today as a modern prohibition with similar consequences. Consider the simple comparison of three ideas and their subsequent effects both proven and probable.
1.) Prohibition - Created and funded violent organized gangs (Capone...)
Controlled substances - Creates and funds violent organized gangs (Look Around in any US city)
Light regulation - Nearly eliminates organized crime by cutting out their main source of revenue. (Nothing to sell that cannot be obtained through legal channels = no profit = no purpose)
2.) Prohibition - Spent billions of taxpayer dollars to enforce laws that do nothing to benefit the American people. (compulsory behavior, read control, is not exactly considered a benefit in a society founded on personal liberties)
Controlled Substances- Spends billions to enforce laws that do not benefit the people. The DEA employs nearly 11,000 people currently, all of which could potentially be taxpaying members of the private job market. (Billions spent on enforcement and millions lost in taxes that could be gained from agents working privately)
Light Regulation - Creates billions in new tax revenue, employs thousands in the private sector, and eliminates billions from the federal budget. (New tax revenues, more private employment, budget cuts, how can this be argued against; even the government wins with more revenue and less spending. Or at the very least more money to spend on other programs.)
3.) Prohibition - Did little to stop the use of alcohol
Controlled Substances - Does little to stop the use of controlled substances.
Light Regulation - Will do little to stop the use of drugs. However it will help ensure the purity and safety of what people are using over; say weed that was smuggled into the country in someone's bowels. How many drug related deaths are simply due to "bad" product?3 ( Consider simply the people that died or were seriously injured by "bad" booze during prohibition vs. after when manufacture was done in the light of day and subject to criticism over safety and methods.4)
No law passed with the intent to legislate lifestyles or morals has ever been beneficial to anyone other than criminals. When it comes down to it, at the end of the day, personal responsibility, not government meddling, works better for the people and the government. The three overly simple points I make for ending modern day prohibition are challenging at best to refute, and I challenge any reader to do so.
1 Personal consumption of alcohol does not harm anyone other than the consumer. Alcohol cannot be considered at fault for what said consumer does while influenced. I take no credit for the term "victimless crime", although I don't remember where I heard it.
2 I understand organized crime has been around since the founding. This period is the first example of hundreds of gangs focused on the same objective, profit from alcohol. Gangs before this were mostly "militia" type organizations that were focused on political or social goals, not driven or funded by profits.
3 I am arguing that drug dealers, unlike corporations or other private legal entities, have no incentive to attempt to produce/distribute "safe" or standardized product. And that due to the laws in place dealers have little ability to standardize or otherwise control quality.
4 Good luck finding numbers of the people harmed by an illegally manufactured product consumed illegally in the 30's. I am simply drawing a common sense inference, that products manufactured openly tend to be safer. (would you feel safer drinking Jack Daniels #7, or Jimbo Bob's Bathtub special recipe? ever hear the term shine blindness?)
Just for a bit of Balance I am taking some talking points from the DEA website that argue against legalization of drugs and attempting to refute them.
DEA.) "there are innovative programs, like Drug Treatment Courts, that offer non-violent users the option of seeking treatment. Drug Treatment Courts provide court supervision, unlike voluntary treatment centers."
- This argument implies that the taxpayer is responsible for providing treatment for people that made bad decisions. As I consistently argue to anyone that will listen, charity should be 100% in the private sector.
DEA.) "Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful."
- Another argument implying that the government should be able to tell you what is or isn't harmful, and subsequently tell you what you can and cannot do. Common Sense dictates that people have more of a vested interest in their safety and wellbeing than their government. I'll take personal responsibility over arbitrary legislation every time.
DEA.) "The Legalization Lobby claims that the United States has wasted billions of dollars in its anti-drug efforts ... Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction—whether in taxpayer dollars or in pain and suffering—government spending on drug control is minimal."
- I sound like a broken tape by now, but this is just another implication that when people make bad decisions, Uncle Sam has a responsibility to help out. Removing the government backstop propping up bad decisions and failure should be the priority, not spending public dollars to "prevent" said failure. The real responsibility should be laid on the individuals, and of course, for the children mentioned; Parenting is the job of a parent, not an overreaching federal agency.
DEA.) "Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs."
- Violent offences should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Blaming a drug for a murder is no different than blaming the gun, knife, car, train, etc...
DEA.) "Legalization has been tried before—and failed miserably. Alaska’s experiment with Legalization in the 1970s led to the state’s teens using marijuana at more than twice the rate of other youths nationally. This led Alaska’s residents to vote to re-criminalize marijuana in 1990."
- More parents turning to the government to do their job, it's sad really. Over-reliance on the government to guide us in every aspect of our life is a big part of the many problems in this country currently. And there is of course the consistent implication that personal behavior needs regulated.
DEA.) "The Legalization Lobby claims drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol. But drunk driving is one of the primary killers of Americans. Do we want our bus drivers, nurses, and airline pilots to be able to take drugs one evening, and operate freely at work the next day? Do we want to add to the destruction by making drugged driving another primary killer?"
- Prohibition was not one of our finer laws ever made and this sounds eerily like an attempt to bring it back. Using this argument is laughable at best. The most recent stats don't even put drunk driving in the top 15 killers in the US, coming in below such scary things as the flu (8/15). Once again it comes down to regulation vs. choice and reliance vs. independence. Clearly I advocate for choice and independence.
DEA.) "The Legalization Lobby claims that the “European Model” of the drug problem is successful. However, since legalization of marijuana in Holland, heroin addiction levels have tripled. And Needle Park seems like a poor model for America."
- Very rarely will I ever say anything from a European model is good for the US, but in this case I will. Personal choice once again. Where exactly in our founding documents or principles does it say or imply that Federal Authorities should be able to keep people from absolutely ruining their lives if they so wish? I actually feel that having addicts, read wastes of life (also see hippies), out in the open will show people the results of that lifestyle on a daily basis (see below), and encourage more people to stay away from the stuff in the first place. Any movement against such things should be private, without federal funding, support, or interference.
DEA.) "The Legalization Lobby claims that America’s prisons are filling up with users. Truth is, only about 5 percent of inmates in federal prison are there because of simple possession. Most drug criminals are in jail—even on possession charges—because they have plea-bargained down from major trafficking offences or more violent drug crimes."
- Major trafficking offenders would be entrepreneurs and businessmen if legality were established. How much of this "violent drug crime is fighting over territory to sell their wares? Another issue solved by legality.
*Throughout this "article" I have been advocating for the legalization of drugs. Do not misconstrue this as me arguing that drugs are a good thing for society. Rather my argument is simply that people should have the choice and responsibility to make their own decisions about their own lives.
**Keep in mind this piece is strictly my opinion on political philosophy and should not be taken as a serious investigation. As always I welcome any criticisms anyone wants to offer.
1.) Prohibition - Created and funded violent organized gangs (Capone...)
Controlled substances - Creates and funds violent organized gangs (Look Around in any US city)
Light regulation - Nearly eliminates organized crime by cutting out their main source of revenue. (Nothing to sell that cannot be obtained through legal channels = no profit = no purpose)
2.) Prohibition - Spent billions of taxpayer dollars to enforce laws that do nothing to benefit the American people. (compulsory behavior, read control, is not exactly considered a benefit in a society founded on personal liberties)
Controlled Substances- Spends billions to enforce laws that do not benefit the people. The DEA employs nearly 11,000 people currently, all of which could potentially be taxpaying members of the private job market. (Billions spent on enforcement and millions lost in taxes that could be gained from agents working privately)
Light Regulation - Creates billions in new tax revenue, employs thousands in the private sector, and eliminates billions from the federal budget. (New tax revenues, more private employment, budget cuts, how can this be argued against; even the government wins with more revenue and less spending. Or at the very least more money to spend on other programs.)
3.) Prohibition - Did little to stop the use of alcohol
Controlled Substances - Does little to stop the use of controlled substances.
Light Regulation - Will do little to stop the use of drugs. However it will help ensure the purity and safety of what people are using over; say weed that was smuggled into the country in someone's bowels. How many drug related deaths are simply due to "bad" product?3 ( Consider simply the people that died or were seriously injured by "bad" booze during prohibition vs. after when manufacture was done in the light of day and subject to criticism over safety and methods.4)
No law passed with the intent to legislate lifestyles or morals has ever been beneficial to anyone other than criminals. When it comes down to it, at the end of the day, personal responsibility, not government meddling, works better for the people and the government. The three overly simple points I make for ending modern day prohibition are challenging at best to refute, and I challenge any reader to do so.
1 Personal consumption of alcohol does not harm anyone other than the consumer. Alcohol cannot be considered at fault for what said consumer does while influenced. I take no credit for the term "victimless crime", although I don't remember where I heard it.
2 I understand organized crime has been around since the founding. This period is the first example of hundreds of gangs focused on the same objective, profit from alcohol. Gangs before this were mostly "militia" type organizations that were focused on political or social goals, not driven or funded by profits.
3 I am arguing that drug dealers, unlike corporations or other private legal entities, have no incentive to attempt to produce/distribute "safe" or standardized product. And that due to the laws in place dealers have little ability to standardize or otherwise control quality.
4 Good luck finding numbers of the people harmed by an illegally manufactured product consumed illegally in the 30's. I am simply drawing a common sense inference, that products manufactured openly tend to be safer. (would you feel safer drinking Jack Daniels #7, or Jimbo Bob's Bathtub special recipe? ever hear the term shine blindness?)
Just for a bit of Balance I am taking some talking points from the DEA website that argue against legalization of drugs and attempting to refute them.
DEA.) "there are innovative programs, like Drug Treatment Courts, that offer non-violent users the option of seeking treatment. Drug Treatment Courts provide court supervision, unlike voluntary treatment centers."
- This argument implies that the taxpayer is responsible for providing treatment for people that made bad decisions. As I consistently argue to anyone that will listen, charity should be 100% in the private sector.
DEA.) "Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful."
- Another argument implying that the government should be able to tell you what is or isn't harmful, and subsequently tell you what you can and cannot do. Common Sense dictates that people have more of a vested interest in their safety and wellbeing than their government. I'll take personal responsibility over arbitrary legislation every time.
DEA.) "The Legalization Lobby claims that the United States has wasted billions of dollars in its anti-drug efforts ... Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction—whether in taxpayer dollars or in pain and suffering—government spending on drug control is minimal."
- I sound like a broken tape by now, but this is just another implication that when people make bad decisions, Uncle Sam has a responsibility to help out. Removing the government backstop propping up bad decisions and failure should be the priority, not spending public dollars to "prevent" said failure. The real responsibility should be laid on the individuals, and of course, for the children mentioned; Parenting is the job of a parent, not an overreaching federal agency.
DEA.) "Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs."
- Violent offences should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Blaming a drug for a murder is no different than blaming the gun, knife, car, train, etc...
DEA.) "Legalization has been tried before—and failed miserably. Alaska’s experiment with Legalization in the 1970s led to the state’s teens using marijuana at more than twice the rate of other youths nationally. This led Alaska’s residents to vote to re-criminalize marijuana in 1990."
- More parents turning to the government to do their job, it's sad really. Over-reliance on the government to guide us in every aspect of our life is a big part of the many problems in this country currently. And there is of course the consistent implication that personal behavior needs regulated.
DEA.) "The Legalization Lobby claims drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol. But drunk driving is one of the primary killers of Americans. Do we want our bus drivers, nurses, and airline pilots to be able to take drugs one evening, and operate freely at work the next day? Do we want to add to the destruction by making drugged driving another primary killer?"
- Prohibition was not one of our finer laws ever made and this sounds eerily like an attempt to bring it back. Using this argument is laughable at best. The most recent stats don't even put drunk driving in the top 15 killers in the US, coming in below such scary things as the flu (8/15). Once again it comes down to regulation vs. choice and reliance vs. independence. Clearly I advocate for choice and independence.
DEA.) "The Legalization Lobby claims that the “European Model” of the drug problem is successful. However, since legalization of marijuana in Holland, heroin addiction levels have tripled. And Needle Park seems like a poor model for America."
- Very rarely will I ever say anything from a European model is good for the US, but in this case I will. Personal choice once again. Where exactly in our founding documents or principles does it say or imply that Federal Authorities should be able to keep people from absolutely ruining their lives if they so wish? I actually feel that having addicts, read wastes of life (also see hippies), out in the open will show people the results of that lifestyle on a daily basis (see below), and encourage more people to stay away from the stuff in the first place. Any movement against such things should be private, without federal funding, support, or interference.
credit to motivated photos on the picture.
DEA.) "The Legalization Lobby claims that America’s prisons are filling up with users. Truth is, only about 5 percent of inmates in federal prison are there because of simple possession. Most drug criminals are in jail—even on possession charges—because they have plea-bargained down from major trafficking offences or more violent drug crimes."
- Major trafficking offenders would be entrepreneurs and businessmen if legality were established. How much of this "violent drug crime is fighting over territory to sell their wares? Another issue solved by legality.
*Throughout this "article" I have been advocating for the legalization of drugs. Do not misconstrue this as me arguing that drugs are a good thing for society. Rather my argument is simply that people should have the choice and responsibility to make their own decisions about their own lives.
**Keep in mind this piece is strictly my opinion on political philosophy and should not be taken as a serious investigation. As always I welcome any criticisms anyone wants to offer.
Posts
