February 16, 2005

homeland offense

Americans realized long before its repeal in December, 1933 that Prohibition had created new and far more dangerous problems than it could have ever been calculated to solve. As the few remaining Americans of the era of speakeasies would tell you, the impact on America was overwhelmingly negative. The affects of Prohibition were bad not simply because of the gangland violence but because of the artificial dichotomy that was created wherein otherwise “good citizens” were routinely flouting the law.

It was a hard lesson in governance, but America learned and moved on.

Or at least, America had moved on until enough time had past that the lessons could be largely forgotten. It is truly amazing to read the Prohibition era stories and see how thoroughly relevant they still seem. The story of the young man determined to end the rum running on the road in front of his house, thwarted by a wise father who took his gun and admonished him to stay out of other people’s business, sounds eerily similar to the stories I hear from the inner city. Not similar in detail obviously: that was a simpler and much different era. Rather, I speak of the similarity of how prohibition set in motion powerful forces with which ordinary people dare not trifle. The similarity of parents who wish to keep their children away both from danger and the dangerous. If you just stay out of the way it seems, the dangerous will most likely leave you alone.

But the dangerous do affect each of us whether we try to stay out of the way or not. The War on Drugs has extracted a price that while hard to precisely total in dollars, is much easier to discern in intangible ways. It can be measured in resources diverted from homeland defense, lives wasted in jail cells, insecurity while simply going to your car at the grocery store, and liberties squandered due to the tactical and strategic exigencies of a phony war.

One may not be able to hang a price tag on these things, but the price is dear none the less.

According to information from the White House, about half of all prisoners in US jails are incarcerated because of the War on Drugs. You have to dig to sort all of that out, but it is worth your time if you doubt the number. Using the White House data, by my rough calculations approximately $18 billion is spent each year to keep these prisoners behind bars. Compare this to the President’s 2005 budget figure for the Department of Homeland Defense of $34 billion (which interestingly includes $6 billion for the Coast Guard, one of the prime players in drug interdiction). I’ll leave it for a person with time to spare to come up with a more thorough accounting, but it is clear that once you add in other expenses, which include a vast array of law enforcement activity from Federal down to local entities and large expenditures in other branches of the military who have been partially co-opted, that we are spending at least as much on the War on Drugs as we are on Homeland Defense.

Eventually we may all be seeking illicit drugs to help us cope with our muddled national priorities.

In my mind, however, the ridiculous expense in financial and human capital of the War on Drugs is not itself a sound argument for the legalization of controlled substances. There are some things that must be illegal if society is to function and what the content of the law is should not be determined simply by what yields a net profit. The exorbitant cost instead should give urgency to the need to commit to drug legalization not because it is a pragmatic good, but because it is the right thing to do.

While legalization is, I am convinced, the morally and legally correct choice, if I am to be totally honest, I must tell you that I truly hate illicit drugs. My personal opposition is, in part, because of moral obligations imposed by my faith, and in part out of my ordinary human fallacy of fearing being out of control. Alcohol, in my view, however, is like liberalism and conservativism: it is OK if consumed in moderation. For me personally, the difference between the two is that moderate alcohol consumption does not lead to inebriation.

But I understand well that others disagree with me on the acceptability of alcohol consumption: the “intellectual” heirs of Billy Sunday are the stock from which I was raised. I know that there are those who would gleefully rob me of my right to enjoy my pint of stout and this is why the principals of Natural Rights are so crucial to building a free society.

When one is certain that they have a clear understanding that particular behaviors are destructive, it is only natural to want to intercede on behalf of the unwitting. But, unlike the majority of Americans, I really do believe in Liberty. As I have said before, I stand for human rights without regard to one’s personal viability, color of skin, religious creed, level of intelligence or unrepentant sinfulness. Free people must have the liberty to make choices that you or I might deem unwise or immoral.

The temperance tyrants sometimes argue back that it is not about controlling the behavior of others, it is about the cost to society of addiction and dangerous behavior under the influence. But I follow the facts where they lead me and not where I wish them to lead, and the obvious fact is that forty years of the War on Drugs has done absolutely nothing to curtail their use or reduce the impact of addictive behavior on society. The reality is that we currently have locked up over 3% of adults and by my conservative estimate annually spend the equivalent of the Gross Domestic Product of Paraguay and yet the cost of drugs continues to decline and the use of drugs is unabated.

The greatest expense borne by Americans in the prosecution of the drug war is the cost in human life and livelihood. Lives which are squandered by poor kids muling or dealing to try to make it in the world no matter what the cost of living in the shadows. Lives of non-combatants who are caught in the real and virtual cross-fire. Livelihood which is squandered by the rising tide of property crimes committed by addicted people seeking money for their next high. Then there is what is perhaps the largest line item on the expense ledger: the lost opportunity to deal with real and pressing issues.

All of this insanity is juxtaposed on the established fact that treatment has been proven far more effective than incarceration. Even the Drug War champions in the White House admit this. It is time to act on reason and end the insanity which is the War on Drugs. Time to give Freedom a chance here in the Home of the Brave.

It is way past time to put a priority on mending broken lives rather than building more jails.

17 Comments:

Blogger Tony Plank said...

Brackenator,

You kept sounding like you were going to disagree with me, but unless I missed it, I don’t think you did. Darn.

3:40 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

stilldreamn,

I agree. It is very scary where we are headed. Soon, they will be regulating nicotine, caffeine and trans fats. The rationale of the War on Drugs definitely applies because it is based on an erroneous belief that prohibition controls the behavior. I just don’t see the logical distinction wherein you control marijuana but not caffeine. Maybe someone can enlighten us.

Personally, I fear the day that I have to go visit the guy on the corner in a Tommy Hilfiger coat so I can hand over a pile-o-cash in exchange for a dime bag Mickey-D’s french fries. Laugh now if you want, but that is where we are headed as a society.

9:26 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

As it turns out, Wally must be a Republican.

1:32 PM  
Blogger David M. Smith said...

I wish there wasn’t such a thing as recreational drugs. I’ve never know anyone who used street drugs without having a decrease in their joy, attitude, and aptitude. I would hate to live in any society where the use of recreational drugs was considered acceptable. However, I place a very high value on personal liberty and I can see where drug laws are also having a very negative effect on our society.

2:39 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

David,

Unlike you, I have known a few people that have used recreational drugs and been social upright valuable contributors to society. I agree with you to an extent because I know far more people whose lives have been destroyed by the direct effects of drug use or indirect effects resulting from the abuse of others. The point is, generalizing is extremely unfair.

I personally would be shocked if we moved to a place where recreational drug use is viewed as acceptable in mainstream society. I would add a caveat for marijuana because the numbers tell us that marijuana use is pretty mainstream.

You get to the main point: is the destruction wrought by the war itself worth the resulting reduction in drug use. Given the widespread abuse of illegal drugs, it is hard to imagine it being worth it. And this doesn’t even get us started on the abuse of legal drugs.

3:41 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

You said, “I used LSD and Mushrooms and Ecstasy quite a bit.” Well now, that explains a few things. :-D

I know, it was a cheap line, but I just can’t resist low hanging fruit.

BTW, one of the people I have known that was not ruined by illegal drugs was an LSD guy. He and his roommates made LSD in college, but never distributed. They were busted and he did hard jail time (seven years). This guy was one of the smartest people I have ever met and a true asset to society. Drugs are clearly more complex than the black and white people like to paint it as.

I don’t know that legalization would end the black market. First, there will always be the market for the under-aged crowd. I personally think we would need age restrictions just like with alcohol and tobacco. And, I’m sure we would regulate drugs sufficiently to add enough to their price that we would have people trying to beat the regulation and taxes. All that said, it will not be nearly as lucrative and I think the worst of the drug distribution chain would disappear. We would also have to raise the pay of law enforcement because they would no longer be able to run their side business.

I agree that certain people are going to find their addictive substance whether we legalize things or not. I think your Grandma was wrong about modern prohibition being the same but only as to a matter of degree. Prohibition has been going on for so long now that the business has kept getting bigger and the stakes higher. I think we have corruption at the highest levels because the profits are so huge. Alcohol prohibition would have been just as bad if it had been left in place, but it was wisely ended.

-----------------------------

You know, it is a shame that I don’t have any anti-legalization posts here. I have heard people make credible cases and it would be fun to have a good discussion. I think that what I am seeing here at the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon is that people who don’t agree with me don’t read regularly or post enthusiastically. This has always puzzled me because I have found few things more fun than charging into the blazing guns of the opposition. Now there has certainly been some spirited debate here at times, but I sense that most of the folks reading this are in agreement. Bummer.

9:24 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

I wouldn't exactly call this sampling representative. Where are Prof and TexaCon when you need them? I can't imagine that they have finally succumbed to reason.

10:16 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

Well, you are touching on one of the weaknesses of libertarianism. You won’t see Libertarians howling about employer drug tests because in their view, being an employee is a voluntary contract. If you don’t like the pee test, you are free to go elsewhere. We all know the reality is that jobs are not that fungible even were they available. And, with the rising tide of employer pee-tests, pretty much you aren’t going to be employed if you don’t submit.

Mind you, this has zero direct personal impact on me. But, I do think it is overboard. I’ll give you an example from a couple of weeks ago in my life. I had a case of the flu and I was taking cough syrup. I didn’t think twice about it and I frankly don’t know why I did think of it, but it occurred to me, what would happen if I was summoned for a random pee-test. I had a slight panic until I found the bottle and verified that the stuff I was taking was alcohol free. Now maybe my short lived panic doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things, but I have to imagine lots of folks have been impacted by unnecessary worrying at times. Or even necessary worrying by someone who used drugs recreationally over the weekend and then lays awake wondering how long it stays in their system and whether they will be random tested.

I, for one, do not think employers should be liable for workers who are under the influence unless they have highly hazardous duties that would endanger others in the ordinary course of business. The law has long made a distinction for companies engaged in transportation and their are probably other exceptions if we took the time to make a list.

10:52 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

I would definitely have federal standards for the pee-test required occupations. Notice I say occupations and not employers. Just because Greyhound is required to test drivers does not mean that the janitors should be tested as well.

Big government is almost always a good for big business. That is the key thing that liberals tend to miss.

I would agree that we need to get employers out of the health care system. Ending employer provided plans and zero dollar coverage (except of course for the poor) are the start of the reforms that would help straighten out our health care disaster. And it is a disaster as anyone who is not one of the privileged few in this country knows.

12:59 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

Your change doesn’t affect much. I would argue that regulation is great for big business. It is bad for small business. Increasing large companies look at regulation as a tool for developing a competitive edge. This works two ways. First, big companies have the resources to buy favorable regulation (mostly indirectly through lobbyists and campaign contributions). Second they have the resources to respond to onerous regulatory burdens.

2:04 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

I am only following up to clarify. Yeah, the coal companies might take an end to regulation as first choice. But, what they seek is regulation that gives them a competitive advantage. Things which squeeze the smaller competition out can be more beneficial than no regulation at all. And this isn’t idle speculation or conspiracy mindedness: this is in fact what is happening. Check the results of various environmental regulations over the last few decades. For example, when was the last Mom and Pop gas station you saw? What happened? Environmental regulation that big industry was firmly behind. The big brands had the resources to put in the new tanks, the Mom and Pops did not. That is just one example.

But let me be crystal clear: if you read the internal mission statements of many large industrial companies, they explicitly tie themselves to using environmental regulation as a tool for competitiveness. They don’t try that hard to hide it really because they can spin it as a positive in the public eye. If you don’t believe me, ask someone else with first hand exposure.

3:45 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

With the thermostat hovering around 85, I think they need to upgrade the old swamp cooler. Or does being drenched in sweat help the spiritual experience? And the thunder bucket in the last pic makes me think that you might be “moved” in ways you weren’t exactly desiring.

8:54 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

stilldreamn,

I am a long time proponent that we need to get employers our of the health insurance business. You are correct about the insidious affects of first dollar coverage. We have some friends with two children and a gold-plated employer provided health plan. They are at the doctor almost as frequently as we are at the grocery store. They are constantly going to the doctor, and getting medications. Now these are good people and I don’t begrudge them the extra care they are getting in any personal way. But, it is undeniable that people like that are driving up the total cost of health care.

Now, the problem with the liberal position is that if you make the health care totally free, you drive a lot of the same type of behavior. If it is free and you might be sick, it is awfully easy to go. There are answers to this like skilled nursing triage and using more physician’s assistants, but it is something to think about for those of us who advocate free health care.

Lastly I will add that I am also a proponent of ending the restrictions on prescription medication. This is for two reasons. First, it is not consistent to allow someone to get cocaine freely but have to have a prescription for Flonase or some-such. Second, there are many times when people have experience or knowledge and they simply don’t need a physicians input. I have actually seen many examples where the patient has to educate the physician. One example is when I have a sinus infection. They never culture you to determine the right anti-biotic, they just take a best guess. Now, those guesses aren’t bad, and generally they work. But the one of the most common antibiotics has been consistently ineffective for me. Also, there is a very cheap anti-biotic ($10 flat with no insurance) that works great, but doctors are reluctant to prescribe it because you have to take it three times a day. Physicians call that a potential “compliance” issue. But if I were in charge of my own health care, I’d be able to remember to take my pill every eight hours if that meant a $10 expense versus $100. This is just one example in my own experience where physicians are an obstacle to effective reasonably priced health care.

All of that said, antibiotics might be the one area where we should not let people have free access because the potential abuse could lead to serious health problems due to the more rapid development of resistant strains.

9:10 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

Yeah, we need to make some types of tests and treatment cheap and easy. This new drug I just took, Tamiflu, is a good case in point. They have simple and inexpensive tests for the flu that can be done on the spot. If Tamiflu is taken very quickly after the start of symptoms or better yet, after EXPOSURE to the flu, the progression of the virus can be halted completely. It is amazing stuff let me tell you. Anyway, how much total savings would we have as a society if there were clinics where you could drop in, a PA could administer the flu test and hand out the Tamiflu?

Our healthcare system is totally warped in many different ways. Too bad that so many, especially in the GOP, want to put there head in the sand and chant to themselves “we have the best healthcare in the world. We have the best healthcare in the world...” Repetition does not make it so.

9:15 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

Wow. Learning at MY knee? Surely that is a desperate act.

I don’t know much about mushrooms. Personally, I’d be afraid of the poisonous kind...not that I see myself going the psychedelic path any time soon.

Peyote brings up interesting Constitutional issues. I’m not up on the most current law (there may have not been any developments, either-I don’t know), but I’m pretty sure it is illegal even as a part of religious practice. There is a Supreme Court decision that is blatantly against the spirit and intent of the Constitution if I ever read one. Yet another example of the War on Drugs run amok. We have no business as a society dictating to Native Americans what their religious practice should be, but that is exactly what we do.

Interestingly, during alcohol prohibition, there was an exception for sacramental wine (My hunch is they filled the little communion cups a bit fuller during that day). By dictating that there is no exception of sacramental peyote were have added yet more layers of hypocrisy to society.

As I’ve said, people here believe in freedom as long as it means freedom to be like everybody else.

1:08 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

It is unbelievably simple common sense, isn’t it? The Supreme Court opinion that ruled against sacramental peyote couched itself in terms of regulation that was neutral as to religion. I.e., since the drug laws were not aimed at religion, they did not interfere with one’s free exercise. I understand the legal point, but clearly the free exercise of religion is being abridged by the law.

Of course, I am over-simplifying because there has to be some limit on what can be characterized as religious practice. If someone believes in the practice of child sacrifice for instance, there aren’t many who would feel even slightly uncomfortable abridging the free exercise of religion with respect to that particular activity. The point is, the murder statutes are reasonable laws because they prevent the infringement of the human rights of others. Only when you start criminalizing activity that should be allowed in a free society do you run in to absurdities such as the outlawing of sacramental peyote.

10:36 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

No, I said it correctly. I was trying to state the Supreme Court’s position (which is of course the law of the land) when I said that they said that if the regulation was neutral as to religion, then it did not rise to the level of a violation of the free exercise clause. I don’t agree with where they drew the line. I would draw it at criminal acts and of course do not think consumption of peyote should be illegal.

12:31 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home