4.3 - Drugs
4.3.1 - The War on Drugs
Lets start by admitting the obvious. The "war on drugs" hasn't reduced drug usage. At all. Add to this the fact that the global illicit drug market is valued annually at more than 400 billion dollars a year. That is more than the oil industry. A great deal of that value is a direct result of the criminalization of drugs; if drugs were legal, they'd be less costly (and of course, we'd spend less on the government's "war"). The global drug market's value would go down.
4.3.2 - Defining the "Drug Problem"
So. What is the "drug problem"? We can answer that fairly easily, I think, by:
- Looking at who is hurt by the current situation, and what about the situation is it that hurts them?
- Looking at who benefits by the current situation, and what about it benefits them?
First of all, we can break down the people involved into four basic classes. In some cases they overlap. It's useful to identify the classes as an aid to visualization. They are:
- Consumers
- Suppliers
- Anti-drug forces
- Those not directly involved in the above three classes.
The street prices of drugs are directly related to supply and demand, and of course to the usual metrics for any product, such as quality, variety, and marketing strategies.
The anti-drug forces work to reduce the supply. This increases the costs to the consumer. In fact, it is the key factor in increasing the costs to the point where it is worthwhile to pursue drug supply as a career. This is nothing but trivial economics.
So the suppliers increase the price, and as some of them go out of business as a result of the anti-drug forces actions, others obtain a tighter hold upon a particular market segment. The suppliers who remain active after any anti-drug force action clearly benefit. So it is clear that it is in the best interest of the suppliers who are not interfered with by the anti-drug forces to see other suppliers bear the brunt of such action. Again, this is nothing more than simple logic and common economic interactions.
In order to avoid such action by the anti-drug forces, suppliers go armed as a matter of course. This aids them in both potential clashes with other suppliers, and with the anti-drug forces. Drug suppliers are killed, anti-drug force members are killed, and occasionally consumers and uninvolved individuals are also killed. This can easily be shown to be a direct result of this area of commerce being illegal. These problems don't occur in the purveying of coffee, for instance, a medium strength legal stimulant. That's because coffee is legal, and not profitable to handle as an underground product. The same applies to alchohol, a powerful and extremely dangerous drug.
4.3.3 - As the lawyers ask, "Cui bono?" Or, "Who Benefits?"
Funds go to jails, police forces, politicians have issues to discuss that allow them to avoid boring (but critically important) issues such as the country's infrastructure, complicated and unbalanced legal and tax systems, etc.
4.3.4 - Who is Hurt?
Many consumers and some suppliers are spending time in jail, at a fairly high cost to the average citizen. Poor quality drugs kill numbers of consumers every year. The financial cost of this underground commerce takes directly away from the resources that these consumers could spread around elsewhere (and the tax income that would be a side-effect of such spending.) Children have direct access to drugs as a result of them being in the street, instead of indirect, monitored and less convenient access in stores.
The medical costs of the "drug war" are now also borne by the average citizen. If drugs were legal and subject to taxation, there would be an available alternative for funding whatever problems remain. Interesting to think about.
Individual consumers are being hurt by the war on drugs. Much more so than actually by drugs, in the general case. Some individual suppliers and anti-drug front-liners are also hurt. The anti-drug forces overall benefit by increased funding, publicity, and staffing. The suppliers benefit by an increase in prices and consolidation of territories. Politicians benefit directly by having "pound the pulpit" material and frightening stories to instill fear in the masses, and another major benefit for politicians is that they do not have to deal with more difficult issues, because they can concentrate on the "drug problem" (as they characterize it) and avoid things such as the fact that a huge number of people in this country only have access to substandard medical care.
4.3.5 - Decriminalization
Let's think about the consequences of decriminalization. Drugs would then be available over the counter. They would be inexpensive, and higher quality, also; regulated products always are. There would be fewer unintentional overdoses, poisonings, and just plain mistakes. The black market, gun toting types would go out of business; there would be no market they could afford to cater to. The anti drug forces would also go out of business; no breaking of laws, so no need for them. That money is saved. It can go to something useful, like paying teachers better, or just education in general. The social cachet of using an illegal product; the flaunting of society... both are gone. Drugs are far less expensive, so there is much less need for theft and other illegal activities to support a habit, for those who have one. Ask yourself this: When is the last time you saw, or heard of, a habitual drunk rob or mug someone to get a fix? Probably never. One reason is that alcohol is not expensive. Another reason is, when you criminalize someone's use of drugs, it is a smaller step to a mugging or a robbery — after all, you've already made them criminals.
Now, in the "drugs are legal" scenario, who uses drugs? Those who really want to, that's who. So, what do we do about them?
Actually, why should we have to do anything about them?
4.3.6 - What about the Children?
Don't we want to stop children from using drugs? I'd say that we do. But, the fact is, right now a child can get drugs anywhere, thanks to the black market made possible by the anti-drug forces. If you legalize drugs, and they're not on the street, they've got to get them from the store. That's not nearly as much fun, not nearly as revolutionary or reactionary, not nearly as "cool". And, they have to go through a "legitimate citizen", the shopkeeper or clerk, to get them. Someone who isn't a criminal in the first place, doesn't want to become a criminal, and who is legally responsible if they make such a sale. It seems fairly obvious that the availability of drugs to young people would drop as a direct consequence, and that some of the coolness factor will erode. That will put a serious dent in drug use by the young, in my opinion.
4.3.7 - Alcohol
Here's something else of interest. Children currently use alcohol, a legal drug (for adults.) But they don't get it on the street in the general case, even though it's illegal for them. It's still not profitable to get it on the street, because it's just too inexpensive elsewhere. Society has its finger on the alcohol problem, and society says that the parents must take responsibility for ensuring that their children do not fall into the habit of alcohol use. There are penalties for supplying children with alcohol, both social and legal. This keeps alchohol use by minors down. Isn't that interesting? Of course, if you're not willing to let the parents take responsibility, you will have a problem.
4.3.8 - The Big Lie
Finally, the "drug warriors" lie to kids as a matter of course. "This is your brain... This is your brain on drugs." This is a lie, explicitly and implicitly. So, when a young person tries pot, for instance, and finds that:
- Their brain doesn't fry...
- ...it feels just fine, in fact, it feels great...
- ...and it does not lead to harder drugs...
...then, you know what? Those lies then do the leading to the harder drugs instead. The logic is simple and chilling: "If pot is really O.K., then they're probably lying about crack, too..." The anti-drug forces are performing the classic "cry wolf" from the fairy tale, and when the really dangerous drugs get in front of a teenager, they have been fortified by the certain knowledge that they've already been lied to. So who is it really that leads those kids to harder drugs? The drug warriors, that's who. And, oh yes... should those kids get caught experimenting, they may well lose their freedom. There are still people from the 70's sitting in the New York jails for marijuana use, you know.
4.3.9 - The Drug Problem
So. I can tell you what the drug problem is. And I can do it in one word: Government. They benefit by the war on drugs, while the citizens (well, all of them except politicians and antidrug force members) lose. So. What should we tell our elected representatives?
4.3.10 - One Man's Position
Do I use drugs, I hear you wondering? No. I don't. I'm probably more anti-drug than the people in the anti-drug forces. I hate drugs. I despise the whole disgusting mess. I hate alcohol. I hate the very idea that escape from reality is preferable to the beauty around us. I have always counseled the young people I have taught (I am a martial arts instructor) that recreational drug use is a dead end, and that includes alcohol, cigarettes, and chewing tobacco. I do my best to tell the truth about it, and to show the real reasons why it's a dead end. I don't lie. In fact, I point out the lies because it enhances my credibility with young people. They already know they've been lied to by the government and its crusaders, so there's no harm in my simply agreeing with them anyway. With an adult, I don't say a word, because I don't feel I have the right to. Its their choice, and it'll be their consequences as well.
Do I think there ought to be any laws about this? Yes. I do. I think that if under the influence of a drug, a person causes harm to anyone else, they should be subject to the absolute maximum penalty possible. Why so harsh? Because I believe that full responsibility lies in you when you take the drug. There is no such thing as "I was intoxicated, I didn't mean it." No, they were intoxicated, they chose to become intoxicated, and so should have no escape by matter of reasoning. It is clear, in fact, that they voluntarily left the domain of reason and entered into the domain of unreason, as that's what drug use is. If they cannot control themselves, they must pay the maximum. That, I think, will generate more responsible behavior than any other approach. If someone drugs you without your knowledge, we should apply those penalties to them instead.
Do I think any of this will come to pass? No. I don't. Because those in power benefit directly from the current situation. Your pastors and social workers, your government, the black marketers. They all reap huge benefits from the drug war. It'll never be socially acceptable to stand up and wave this nasty truth around, they'll crucify you in a heartbeat. And you, the general public, are cowards.
So what do you get as your reward for your silence or your ignorant "parroting" of the government's drug policies? You get the drug problem. Your problem. Your kids problem.
In the final analysis, you are the drug problem, because you let it happen in the first place, and because you have failed to act to stop it.
You can turn it around. Speak up. Fight the good fight; point out what is really going on, who is really gaining from the current situation, who is really losing. Write your representatives, explain your position, and calmly indicate that any pro-"drug war" vote on their part, or any missed anti-"drug war" vote on their part, will result in your vote being cast for another candidate.
Have a comment for me? Click here.