War on Drugs Redux

[Bill Mattocks]

We'll see in November with the California initiative.

It seems to me that your Reefer Madness-inspired intolerant view of recreational drug use is on its way out, Bill.

November will tell us if that is going to be sooner or later.

I have no doubt you're right, but the pendulum of public opinion swings both ways. I am old enough to remember the various decriminalization laws and "legalize it" movements of the 1970's, which had more steam than today's lackluster medical pot movement. However, what happens, happens. None of which addresses my point - that the argument that illegal drugs (and not just pot) should be legalized because the laws against them are impossible to enforce is a worthless argument. I still declare it, nobody has been able to gainsay it so far. Ya'll are just twisting in the breeze of my incredible and amazing logic.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, prohibition of drugs fits the definition of backfire regulation. The law arguably makes things much worse than not having the law.

It does not matter. What makes things worse or better has nothing to do with the basic and fundamental right of the people to order society as they wish, so long as the core principles of the rights of our citizens are not violated.

It's up for debate, much like the backfire regulation of firearms. So, yes, abolishing the drug prohibition very well could be considered a win against the war on drugs, not just because it's difficult to enforce, but more because the benefits of not having the prohibition outweigh the benefits of having it. I doubt one could say the same of child porn or murder laws.

There are no provisions in US law for weighing the legality of a law based upon the relative benefits versus the ills of its existence. If it is not unconstitutional, and it expresses the will of Congress or the People, it is legal. The 'war on drugs' is a phrase. Changing how you define 'victory' in that sense changes nothing; there is no basis for changing the laws so that you can declare a 'victory' in a war that exists only in terminology.

It continues to amaze me how many people seem to think that a law ought to exist or not because of the 'goodness' of it. While lawmakers and citizens may consider moral aspects or health aspects of various laws, the point of them is not that they are good or bad, that they result in healthy behavior or good citizenship, but that they reflect the will of the people and do not violate the Constitution. That's all.

Oatmeal is, I am told, much better for me than packaged cereal. If your logic were to be followed, I should be forced to eat oatmeal for breakfast. And indeed, if the people were to pass such a law, and it did not violate my rights, I would indeed be required to eat oatmeal for breakfast. But here's the catch; I would not be being forced to eat oatmeal for breakfast because it is good for me, but because the people want it to be the law. Goodness and badness are simply irrelevant. All that matters is the vote.

We mistake the declared or presumed intent behind society's laws with the reason why they are legal. They may be proposed, discussed, and passed based on the intent of society to cure some social ill or address some moral turpitude, but they exist and are enforced because they reflect the will of the people. If the people were evil, then the laws would reflect that and be equally valid.

Society does not want heroin (or pot, or speed, or coke, or ecstasy or whatever) to be legal. That is all the justification that is required. Any lengthy diatribe about how heroin (etc) builds strong bones 12 ways means precisely nothing.

 

[chaos1551]

It does not matter. What makes things worse or better has nothing to do with the basic and fundamental right of the people to order society as they wish, so long as the core principles of the rights of our citizens are not violated.

There are no provisions in US law for weighing the legality of a law based upon the relative benefits versus the ills of its existence. If it is not unconstitutional, and it expresses the will of Congress or the People, it is legal. The 'war on drugs' is a phrase. Changing how you define 'victory' in that sense changes nothing; there is no basis for changing the laws so that you can declare a 'victory' in a war that exists only in terminology.

It continues to amaze me how many people seem to think that a law ought to exist or not because of the 'goodness' of it. While lawmakers and citizens may consider moral aspects or health aspects of various laws, the point of them is not that they are good or bad, that they result in healthy behavior or good citizenship, but that they reflect the will of the people and do not violate the Constitution. That's all.

Oatmeal is, I am told, much better for me than packaged cereal. If your logic were to be followed, I should be forced to eat oatmeal for breakfast. And indeed, if the people were to pass such a law, and it did not violate my rights, I would indeed be required to eat oatmeal for breakfast. But here's the catch; I would not be being forced to eat oatmeal for breakfast because it is good for me, but because the people want it to be the law. Goodness and badness are simply irrelevant. All that matters is the vote.

We mistake the declared or presumed intent behind society's laws with the reason why they are legal. They may be proposed, discussed, and passed based on the intent of society to cure some social ill or address some moral turpitude, but they exist and are enforced because they reflect the will of the people. If the people were evil, then the laws would reflect that and be equally valid.

Society does not want heroin (or pot, or speed, or coke, or ecstasy or whatever) to be legal. That is all the justification that is required. Any lengthy diatribe about how heroin (etc) builds strong bones 12 ways means precisely nothing.

Laws can be changed. That's my only point. I've presented my reason why I think the drug laws should be changed. I'm done.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Protecting individuals and minorities from the tyranny of the majority/tyranny of the masses (or, "the violence of majority faction," as it is called in Federalist 10) is an important piece of the foundation of this nation and others that profess to be free societies.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, brother.

Sorry, but I think you're misunderstanding what was said.

 

[elder999]

Ah, the Rand Paul trap. It was neither one, of course. It is no longer the law because such laws were violations of basic civil liberties. Enforcement didn't enter into it; nor did the morality of it.

Prohibiting the ingestion of substances by making them illegal is a violation of basic civil liberties.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Drug use is a victimless crime, unlike child prostitution.

Exactly. You can't just substitute words like Glenn Beck and expect us to follow.
Sean

 

[Nomad]

I'm going to highlight this part again, just because:

With young people reporting that obtaining illicit drugs is easier than getting alcohol or tobacco

Alcohol and tobacco are harder for underage people to get their hands on specifically because they are legal and regulated. If marijuana and other drugs were to be sold legally, then similar limits can more easily be enforced, ultimately keeping more drugs out of the hands of kids (where they arguably have their biggest impact and cause the most damage).

This is in addition to the massive benefits from them being a viable source of taxation, as opposed to the near bottomless pit of spending currently being done to (unsuccessfully) prevent their manufacture, transport, and sale.

Bill, your arguments, while passionate, are largely irrelevant. You are basically stating that the laws are the laws, and thus must be enforced no matter what.

Um... no. Laws are changed all the time. California today outlawed plastic bags (starting Jan 2012). This is new. Is it what a majority of the people want? I don't know, but I'd love to see the polls on this one. It was pushed through the legislature largely by environmentalists.

Keeping a long-standing policy in place, which is clearly not working, and which is to a large extent funding criminal organizations and fueling violence around the country and around the world is not smart. Changing that policy to an alternative measure that has proven positive effects may be. It's not breaking the law, it's changing the way we view the problem.

Prohibition is a failed experiment. It is time, IMO, to start looking at approaches which have worked in other countries to lower the crime and violence associated with drugs.

 

[Archangel M]

It does not matter. What makes things worse or better has nothing to do with the basic and fundamental right of the people to order society as they wish, so long as the core principles of the rights of our citizens are not violated.

This.

I am with Bill on the issue. The thing that I see wrong with the "law creation" system though is how we squeeze in these "special interest" laws all the time. Not to minimize the pain and suffering of the people involved, but it seems like every time some poor child dies or gets killed, the parents want to sponsor some new law in the childs name. Some of these laws are good IMO and necessary but others seem redundant in light of existing laws that are seldom enforced. These laws seem to have little to do with the popular will and more to do with the media and PR.

 

[elder999]

It does not matter. What makes things worse or better has nothing to do with the basic and fundamental right of the people to order society as they wish, so long as the core principles of the rights of our citizens are not violated.

Society does not want heroin (or pot, or speed, or coke, or ecstasy or whatever) to be legal. That is all the justification that is required. Any lengthy diatribe about how heroin (etc) builds strong bones 12 ways means precisely nothing.

And, I'd remind you-again-that there was a time when "society" did not want "inter-racial" marriages, or for Jews and Catholics to have the vote-they were denied voting rights in most of the states until about 1813....or for blacks to have voting rights (not even going to go there)....or for American Indians to have any rights.......

 

[tellner]

And, I'd remind you-again-that there was a time when "society" did not want "inter-racial" marriages, or for Jews and Catholics to have the vote-they were denied voting rights in most of the states until about 1813....or for blacks to have voting rights (not even going to go there)....or for American Indians to have any rights.......

And it was well into the twentieth century before people of Asian descent born in this country could legally become citizens. And White women who had sex with Asian men could lose their citizenship for it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Prohibiting the ingestion of substances by making them illegal is a violation of basic civil liberties.

I disagree, and so have the courts, to date.

 

[Archangel M]

Equating denying people the same rights as others due to their race seems a bit of a red herring when we are talking about a legal decision that effects everybody regardless of race or sex.

 

[elder999]

Equating denying people the same rights as others due to their race seems a bit of a red herring when we are talking about a legal decision that effects everybody regardless of race or sex.

I'm not doing that-I'm pointing out that a society's desires and beliefs aren't the ultimate standard of what is or should be legal.

 

[tellner]

I'm not doing that-I'm pointing out that a society's desires and beliefs aren't the ultimate standard of what is or should be legal.

Dunno if I'd put it that way. The law defines what is legal. The law is made by the desires and beliefs of the polis if not the demos.

 

[elder999]

Dunno if I'd put it that way. The law defines what is legal. The law is made by the desires and beliefs of the polis if not the demos.

"not the ultimate standard."

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm not doing that-I'm pointing out that a society's desires and beliefs aren't the ultimate standard of what is or should be legal.

I beg to differ. A society's "desires and beliefs" as you put it are indeed the ultimate standard for what *is* legal when they are expressed through the legislative process in the USA; with the caveat I continue to mention, which is that such laws must still pass Constitutional muster if challenged via the judiciary branch.

As to what "should be legal," that's a different kettle of fish altogether. Now we veer into the realm of morals, social standards, the current zeitgeist, and so on.

You have brought up the issue of miscegenation, so let's visit that for a moment. In many US states, it was formerly illegal for people of different races to marry. I will stipulate that such laws were unequivocally immoral, wrong, bad, and evil. Please understand that I do not defend them in any way except one; their legality at the time. I do not equate 'lawful' with 'right' in this sense.

It is clear that historically, many of the white citizens of some US states wished to deny certain rights to black citizens, and especially to protect themselves from what they felt were the dangers of interracial marriage (not all miscegenation laws were about blacks and whites; California had a law forbidding Asian and white marriages until 1948). Did they have the legal right to enact such laws? Yes, unless such laws contravened civil rights defined either in their own state Constitutions or the Constitution of the USA as applied to the states via the 14th Amendment's 'incorporation clause' (which did not start until the 1890's).

As we know, Loving v Virginia ended all legal anti-miscegenation laws in the USA, based on the fact that such laws violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.

That does not mean that such laws were illegal retroactively. It means that an injustice was done, and it was rectified to the extent that it could be in law.

It did not argue that such laws were immoral or evil. It argued that they violated protected and defined civil rights.

So, were anti-miscegenation laws 'wrong'? Of course they were; morally I would absolutely agree they were wrong, they were always wrong. Were they illegal? Not at the time, but they were found to be later when the Supreme Court finally granted cert to such a case.

Getting back to drugs; societies have the right to order their society as they wish, according to their own standards. Those standards do not have to pass any moral test of goodness or badness to be lawful, although society may choose to enact rules for moral reasons if they wish. Morality may inform a society what it *should* do, but it does not inform a society what it *must* do. If society wishes heroin to remain illegal, and passes laws to ban it, society may do so legally, despite protestations of the relative safety of heroin or the claimed right of a person to ingest whatever substance they wish (until such a civil right is found to exist in the Constitution).

Our own society has placed restrictions upon itself, however; it is not just the zeitgeist that rules. Laws must also pass muster with respect to the civil rights protected by the Constitution and the limits placed on federal authority. No law in the USA has ever been overturned in court because it is morally wrong; its wrongness or rightness doesn't enter into it (juror nullification may be an exception).