Would like to know what "harm reduction" implies for social policy and law in supposedly-related domains.

For instance, the RKBA community is already ringing alarm bells about Kerlikowske's likely push for gun control. Guns are being drawn into the drug-war debate.

Instead of "soft on crime" they should try to spin it as, "strong on civil liberties." I don't want to go off on a rant about the Drug War, but this war needs to end.

Canerican, would you explain how prohibition is helping the war? Prohibition, if you're not a libertarian, is a very ineffective fiscal policy in the War on Drugs.

Canerican writes:

You never really explained what is wrong with prohibitionism, its obvious from the extreme Libertarian point of view, but from any thing but that and the hard-left perspective, I don't think it's logical. Could you enlighten me?

Shouldn't the onus be on prohibitionists to explain why it is necessary?

And anti-prohibitionism is not an "extreme" libertarian point of view; it's mainstream libertarian. In fact I don't see how anyone could call themselves libertarian if they supported the war on drugs.

Instead of "soft on crime" they should try to spin it as, "strong on civil liberties."

People don't tend to be terribly interested in civil liberties they don't plan on exercising, which means that most people are very uninterested in the violations of the rights of drug users.

whit,

the fact that obama chose him gives me much less confidence in obama.

Much less confidence? How much could you have left after he picked Holder for AG???

So was there tough enforcement or wasn't there? The rise of methamphetamine and the (presumably worsening) drug smuggling at the Mexican border would seem to indicate otherwise.

Perhaps some drug laws were enforced strongly and others weakly, but this incoherent article is no basis for understanding the previous administrations policies nor those of the new administration. We're supposed to understand that the drug laws will remain the same, but they are now going to be enforced without using those "arrest and prosecution" methods?

i didn't notice any harsher or tougher enforcement under bush than i noticed under clinton.

the rise on meth thang is also largely irrelevant as to measuring tough enforcement.

meth is extremely easy to manufacture - easily available household chemicals and a few hours.

as long as there is demand, there will be meth cooks

The biggest problem with prohibition is that it is a straightforward infringement of liberty. What substances my neighbor chooses to put into his body is not my business. To borrow a phrase from Jefferson on religious freedom, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

However, as with many infringements of liberty, prohibition also creates social ills, which may be observed even by those who do not consider liberty an adequate inherent good.


First among these ills is the cost of enforcement. This includes the cost to taxpayers of policing drug production and use; the cost of trials; the cost of imprisonment or parole enforcement. These costs are substantial and are easily reckoned: consider that one-quarter of persons imprisoned in the United States were convicted solely of drug offenses (production, possession, or dealing).

A second social ill is the lost productivity of the imprisoned. This is an indirect consequence of enforcement. My present salary is in six figures; if I were to use illegal drugs and were convicted and imprisoned, I would lose that job, and the economy would lose my contribution. This ill does not end with the end of a prison term, as ex-cons are typically unable to find jobs that allow them to make as large a contribution as the un-convicted.

A third ill is the creation of a black market. The black market is outside of the legitimate economy and thus represents economic activity that is not taxed -- or, in many cases, recorded at all. If a man chooses to spend $50 on a quantity of marijuana or cocaine rather than of wine or tobacco, he creates a "leak" in the flow of money from the legitimate market to the black market. Money laundering and other forms of economic corruption are created to lift the leaked money back into the legitimate economy. Thus the black market corrupts the legitimate market.

A fourth ill is the creation of high-risk, high-reward economic opportunities in the black market. The more effective enforcement is at restricting the supply of illegal drugs, the higher the prices will go -- and thus, the higher the reward for successful drug production, smuggling, and dealing. Larger risks can only be absorbed by truly desperate individuals (who turn to drug crime in the perceived absence of alternatives) or by increasingly large and well-defended operations: drug gangs. Thus, prohibition ends up financing the creation of large-scale criminal operations: organized crime.

The consequences of organized crime are many, including violence; but one of them deserves special notice as a fifth social ill of prohibition: once there is organized crime with a revenue stream, the corruption of enforcement authorities becomes a necessity. Broadly, organized crime cannot exist for a substantial length of time without the consent of the cops: either by abandoning their duties (letting the gangs "own" a neighborhood because it's too dangerous to patrol) or by explicit corruption (being bought off). In some cases -- even in one small, quaint Massachusetts town where I used to live -- the police become an active part of the black market, moving and dealing illegal drugs.

(It's worth noting that many people lay the blame for some of these ills upon drugs rather than drug prohibition. However, recreational and addictive drugs which are not illegal do not create these ills: the owners of liquor stores and bars do not engage in shootouts, nor do they generally need to buy off the cops -- except, of course, in places where a scarcity of liquor licenses is used as a means of extortion.)

A sixth ill is the degradation of other rights to make enforcement easier. This includes the weakening of the rights to be secure from search and seizure, the increase of police violence, as well as the degradation of the right to freedom of speech and of the press. (For the latter, see the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, which forbids the publication of information relating to the manufacture of a controlled substance.)


A common rebuttal is that some of these social ills would follow from the prohibition of anything, even of acts that are themselves violations of rights. (For instance, organized crime can exist amongst thieves as well as amongst drug-smugglers.)

This is, to an extent, true. However, the cost of many of these ills depends on the prevalence and profitability of the crime in question: and illegal drugs are vastly more profitable than theft. It is reasonable to say that the social cost of theft would vastly exceed the cost of "theft prohibition" -- so prohibition is a good bargain. The cost of drug prohibition, however, vastly exceeds the cost of drug use.

Drug prohibition is a difficult issue. To Libertarians, it's easy. To everyone else (which is, frankly, almost everyone), it isn't.

From a strictly utilitarian point of view, prohibition seems to be counter-productive. There wouldn't be a drug war destabilizing Mexico (and Afghanistan) if drugs were freely available? The escalation of Police tactics to no-knock heavily armed SWAT raids is a direct result of the drug war. The greatly increased potency of marijuana, and the creation of crack cocaine, is likewise a result of prohibition.

Unfortunately, decriminalizing drugs has all the political support of decriminalizing child molestation. It isn't going to happen.

The problem with Kerlikowske as "Drug Czar" is that he is likely to slop the war over into a war on lawful firearms ownership, which he has pushed as Police Chief of Seattle. Indeed, some gun-rights commentators have wondered whether Obama chose Kerlikowske mainly for his gun views. That's perhaps a bit paranoid, but one does have to wonder....

Those who claim that the two - drugs and guns - are separate issues need to keep in mind that drug gangs use guns, and the anti-gun types feel that they need to ban the possession of guns by the law abiding in order to combat criminal misuse of them. That this doesn't make a lot of sense (When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, etc.) from a commonsense point of view doesn't seem to register. With such strong belief in the miraculous, these people ought to go into the faith-healing business and leave law abiding gun owners alone....

The problem with Kerlikowske as "Drug Czar" is that he is likely to slop the war over into a war on lawful firearms ownership, which he has pushed as Police Chief of Seattle. Indeed, some gun-rights commentators have wondered whether Obama chose Kerlikowske mainly for his gun views. That's perhaps a bit paranoid, but one does have to wonder....

true. apart from his lack of direction during the mardi gras riots (resulting in the death of kristopher kime), kerlikowske was a kneejerk leftist when it came to guns.

also noted that kerlikowske had his own gun stolen from his car when he left it inside the car.

we had a shooting last year at a seattle public property area (near seattle center iirc) during a festival.

due to this one incident (someboby got wounded), mayor nickels proposed an "executive order" banning firearms carry in city of seattle public properties to include parks.

iow, the law abiding would be forced to go armed, AND if they wished to enter a park, needed to secure their firearm in their car, or leave it at home (if they were walking).

this is directly violative of WA state constitution and case law.

nickels claimed that violators would get "trespassed" if caught with a gun, and then supposedly could be arrested if they returned, etc. every attorney in the state with a brain knew it was illegal, as did (theoretically) kerlikowske but he went right along with the proposal.

proving he has both terrible judgment, and was a complete lapdog for the mayor.

if obama is looking for a lapdog cop-o-crat who has no problem ignoring the constitution when his fearless leader, beckons, kerlikowske's da man.

I see the tide favoring legalization of a number of controlled substances within 10 or 20 years.

I hope you are right, but that was conventional wisdom ... in 1975 :-(

It is a tide, not a one-way valve. The forces of reason and justice sometimes are mired, or pushed backward for a time. We recently experienced a torture-kidnapping-warrantless surveillance detour, and watched a school board waste a million dollars of taxpayer money on a quest to force science teachers to warn students that 'evolution is just a theory' and tell students that "intelligent design" is part of science. The long-term trajectory is settled, however: toward reason, toward science, toward justice, toward equality, toward openness, toward freedom.

Hmm, I'm not convinced. An astute political move would probably cover Obama from the soft on crime accusation.

I mean as Rahm Emmanuel said you shouldn't let a good crisis go to waste. Obama just needs to milk 9/11 a bit too and instead of portraying the change as scaling down the drug war present it as a shift in resources to anti-terrorism. If he puts the right spin on it, especially if he gives a speech or two in front of some of the 9/11 families and emphasizes the immediate need for trained officers the republican's won't dare suggest he is being soft on crime. Then when it comes around to budget time Obama just takes the fiscally responsible position that after the huge stimulus bill the country can't afford the cost of hiring replacement agents to fill those slots. Or better yet bury the fact that they never got around to hiring replacements for the DEA so no one ever notices.

-------

The real problem isn't shifting the federal resources. It's dealing with the "I can't let my grandma know I'm ok with smoking a joint," factor. On moral issues like pornography or drugs even the people who use the products healthily (have fun safely without ruining their life) fear the disapproval they imagine they would receive for suggesting pot isn't so bad. They feel kinda guilty about smoking up and so the easiest thing to do is to voice concerns about the effects of marijuanna on people younger than you. It's the same reason the people who are the most sanctimonious about porn/sex often behave the worst in private.

In practice, states and localities can vote to decriminalize simple possession (and several states have one so) and the federal government isn't going to get involved. The FBI, DEA and U.S. attorney offices have better things to do than investigate and prosecute people for dime bags. Once we move on to possession with intent to distribute, the federal government can and will get involved irrespective of state law.

yes, to some extent. but there are not very many DEA agents, etc.

if our state, for instance, decrim'd MJ tomorrow, people could confidently walk around with an ounce or have a dozen or less plants in their house, and the feds wouldn't even blink.

one unintended consequence though is that if a state does decrim (especially hard drugs), the feds are incentivized to start ramping up enforcement on smaller cases, and justify it with their usual rhetoric.

but that's the reality. we don't have initiatives (by popular vote) on the national level, but at the state level.

the feds would risk some seriously bad press if they started hassling individual users, once a state decrim'd. i don't see it happening, but nobody knows for sure.

M. Simon

Try telling that to the DEA or all the local and state "narcostics" squads, or to the zillions of draw war prisoners.

No, drugs have not been decriminalized - not even close.

Ending the war on gangs of course ends the war on drugs as a real enterprise. You need organized crime to organize transnational shipments of illegal commodities.

Not to mention making a market between people who would rather not know each other: growers and buyers - for commodities that are locally grown.

I'm in favor of any way forward in scaling down the drug war.

Having the feds be tolerant of local harm reduction is a baby step, but is encouraging given prior signalling that the feds will start to respect some state laws on medical marijuana.

But certainly we need a far stronger push. On top of civil rights isses, we need to keep pointing out the tax on urban development posed by the violence resulting from prohibition, and the corruption domestically and internationally.

How many jobs would be lost in government at all levels if drugs were legal?

How many windows do you break?

Many parts of America have never learned the Prohibition lesson.

A remarkable number of municipalities are "dry" -- forbidding sale for on-premise consumption, sale for off-premise consumption, transport and/or production of alcohol beverages in one manner or another -- consequent to statutory "local option" provisions. It is difficult to believe but, 75 years after Prohibition's repeal, in some states the area off-limits to alcohol approaches or exceeds one-quarter.

Some "blue laws" -- imposing special restrictions on alcohol beverages on Sundays -- persist. Perhaps someone should start a special legal foundation to address such primitive outrages.

Curiously, more than one ATF agent has told me that some of the most troublesome "moonshine" regions have involved dry muncipalities. Jack Daniels whiskey (or "whisky," as the feds describe it) is distilled in a dry municipality.

We could help Mexico tremendously by legalizing marijuana. Corruption of the Mexican government due to bribes/intimidation by drug lords is destabilizing the Mexican government.

Legalizing marijuana would also help with balance of payments problems and increase tax revenues. Marijuana is a huge business (in the scores of billions of dollars).

It seems like a no brainer: legalizing marijuana will help the economy, stabilize Mexico, cut down on crime, and increase our liberty.

"2. Even with cheep drugs, many drug users will not be able to afford them or hold a job while using."

I last heard that argument at a cocktail party.

"The people who tell me that one are all in law enforcement."

Over a few beers?