Whenever I mention my belief in drug legalization, one of the many questions raised is why I care. Many people seem to think that anyone pushing for drug legalization must be a secret stoner. And, to be fair, many drug legalization groups do give that impression. NORML, for example, outside of a few doctrinaire libertarians, often gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, of being made up of people with lifetime subscriptions to High Times magazine.

And that is  major hurdle in even interesting people in the question of drug legalization. Many seem to think that the only people drug laws even touch are drug users and the dealers who supply them. However, the truth is far different. In a previous essay I explained how banning certain drugs has led to problems in many foreign nations and along our borders.

But perhaps that is a bit too abstract. So, I will mention just a few ways that ordinary citizens are harmed by our drug laws.

The first is of personal relevance, as it has led to many difficulties for me. That is the way that drug laws have kept doctors from properly managing pain. As the federal government has begun to meddle more directly in doctors' choices about pain management, the medical community has become more reluctant to manage pain. I wrote about this at some length in my other blog, but let me just say that, in the past two years, I have been cut off from pain medication and been forced to undergo opiate withdrawal twice, have been left in excruciating pain without any medication for over a month total, and been called a drug addict and liar to my face by one doctor. Unfortunately I did not have a diagnosis at the time, so I was at the mercy of doctors. I do now have an official diagnosis (which took over a year of tests to establish), so I can receive some pain medication, but I still cannot honestly describe my pain to doctors for fear of being thought a drug seeker and being cut off once more. All because we fear that someone may wrongly gain access to opiates.

And patients like me are not the only ones to suffer from this. Doctors suffer just as much from our war on drugs. Rather than managing pain as dictated by their medical opinion, they have to temper that medical opinion with considerations of what DEA agents may think. And do not think this is an exaggeration, doctors are being sentenced to jail on the basis that a DEA agent believes they are over prescribing. Unfortunately, the DEA has never defined what constitutes over prescription, leaving doctors subject to lengthy jail sentences¹ based on vague or nonexistent rules. Is it any wonder that doctors are reluctant to prescribe enough medication to keep me, and those like me, from suffering? No matter how much they might want to eliminate pain, they have to consider that doing so could land them in jail.

If we don't limit ourselves to those who are directly touched by drug restrictions, the list of those harmed gets much longer. For instance, there are those who live in the inner city, who see their neighborhoods turned into open air drug markets, those killed by stray bullets during turf wars and those whose children are recruited into working as lookouts and mules by drug dealers. Now, admittedly, inner city crime is hardly caused entirely by the drug laws, a large part of the blame must be placed elsewhere. But the drug laws do make criminality much more profitable than it would be otherwise, and make a life of crime much more attractive. If all they had to offer was stealing cars and burglary, it is unlikely criminals could recruit as easily as they do today. So, while legalizing drugs will hardly eliminate crime, it clearly will make crime a lot less attractive, and will probably slow the collapse of our inner cities.

Nor are city dwellers the only ones made less safe by our drug laws. By filling our prisons with drug users and dealers, we add to already over crowded prisons. In the worst case, this leads to prisoners being released early due to overcrowding. But we do not need early release for overcrowding to be dangerous. Overcrowded prisons also lead to an environment where judges prefer shorter sentences to avoid the necessity of such early releases. And from experience it is evident that shorter prison sentences almost always lead to increases in crime. Even if we discount the problem of early release, prison overcrowding is still a risk, as crowded prisons are both more prone to escapes and are much more dangerous for those who have to guard  those prisoners. So, even ignoring early release, prison guards are placed at greater risk by the crowding the drug laws cause in prisons and jails².

There are other ways in which drug laws harm all of us, mainly in the surrender of our rights and in the growth of intrusive government, but as I plan to deal with those topics separately, I will leave them alone for now.

Even ignoring that topic, I think I have made my point. Drug legalization is not a topic which benefits just s few stoners who want a legal buzz. From patients to doctors to city dwellers to prison guards to the entire populace of the US, there are many, many people who are touched by the drug laws. Despite popular impressions, the laws harm more than just drug users and dealers. We may disagree over whether the benefits outweigh the harm, but let us at least recognize that these laws have a far wider reach than most people recognize.

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

1. I shall deal with some details of this case later. The description in the article paints a slightly different picture than other reports. However, for the moment let me say that, one thing the press and many doctors fail to realize is that oxycodone, while "active" for 6-8 hours, really only provides pain relief for about 1-2 hours. It is one reason many legitimate patients end up using "huge" quantities of the drug. Having found a doctor inclined to prescribe longer-acting pain medications, I no longer take the "excessive" amount of medication I once did, but at one time I had a doctor cut off my medication as I was taking "excessive amounts". And trust me, I was not doing so to get "high", I did so simply to allow me to get up off the sofa and move around the room. (Sadly, while pain relief lasts only 1-2 hours, CNS depression lasts the full 8 hours, so the struggle was often between finding adequate relief and avoiding a lethal dose.)

2. Obviously there are logical limits to this argument. We could easily cause our prisons to be less crowded still by releasing everyone not guilty of murder, for example. But that is obviously absurd. My argument is simple. Those who commit violent crimes clearly deserve to be in prison, as do those who steal from others. Drug dealers who fall in either category should be in jail or prison as well. On the other hand, I do not think society is at risk if we do not incarcerate drug mules (who often receive absurdly stringent sentences, sometimes averaging longer than those committing homicide receive in the same jurisdiction), users, or users who turn "dealer" to support their habit.  Releasing those who were jailed solely due to violation of drug laws does not seem to increase the danger to the public in the way releasing violent criminals or even thieves would.

Having written about unintended consequences in a very general way, I now do want to look at some specific unintended consequences of the war on drugs. Again, in my mind these seem to be sufficiently harmful that they argue for ending the war on drugs, but I know many will disagree. So, I am presenting them simply to make clear exactly what the costs of the war on drugs are. It is quite possible that many will  argue  that, even with these consequences, the war on drugs is worthwhile, and I can understand how some could come tot hat conclusion, but I think we are all better served if we agree in advance what the real costs are.

When people mention the foreign policy costs of the war on drugs, most think of the often heard argument that the war on drugs finances hostile foreign powers. And this is a valid concern. Drug profits do support insurgencies throughout South America, as well as warlords in Afghanistan and Thailand. Beyond that many terrorist and criminal groups, such as the KLA, are involved in some segments of the drug trade as well. Admittedly, many are funded more by European drug smuggling than US,  but the US prohibition on drugs play a part as well.

However, that is only half the story. The funds that drug growing, growing and smuggling pours into these groups is harmful, but the subsequent consequences are worse. Let us look at just one example, Columbia.

Columbia has been plagued for a long time with numerous insurgent groups. At one time these groups were funded by the USSR through their intermediary Cuba. However, with the fall of the USSR, Cuba no longer has the money to maintain a world wide network of insurgent groups, and Columbian insurgents were forced to turn to drugs and kidnapping for revenues¹. And, while kidnapping may be profitable, if we are honest, the drug revenues were the primary source of support for these groups. Whether they participated directly in the drug trade or hired themselves out as muscle for drug cartels, it was the cocaine trade which kept the insurgency alive. Without the drug trade, these rebels would not have vanished, but their ability to cause large scale harm would have been seriously diminished.

But it is not enough to say that our drug laws kept the insurgency alive. What we need to see if how that insurgency hurt US interests. In the nation of Columbia we have a relatively large military presence. Not just to help the nation keep the insurgency in check, but also to participate in drug interdiction and eradication. During peace time this may be of little concern, but now that we are involved in an increasing number of conflicts, we find ourselves with troops tied up in various parts of the world, pursuing drug interdiction and fighting insurgents funded by drug revenues. All of which are direct outcomes of the war on drugs.

Nor is it only in drug producing nations we find our military tied up in drug related functions. The Coast Guard expends quite a bit of effort in attempting to prevent drugs form entering the nation, as does the Navy from time to time. Again, resources that could be otherwise employed are being tied down in pursuing drug smugglers.

And the military resources are not the only cost. On our southern border, faced with an overwhelming wave of illegal immigrants, our border patrol has to expend efforts on preventing drug smuggling at the same time they try to stem the tide of immigration. Admittedly, thanks to the fact that human smugglers and drug smugglers are often the same people, or at least use the same routes, this is not as serious a problem as the military we tie down in Columbia.

However, that overlap does point out one other consequence to the war on drugs that is often overlooked. By making illegal border crossings so profitable, the drug trade across the Mexican border has inspired an ongoing search for newer and safer routes into the US. With millions of dollars of profit available for successful smugglers, a lot of effort is expended on finding ways into the country. The problem is, once those routes are established, not only are they used for drugs, but for large scale human smuggling as well.

Now, this is not to say that there would be no human smuggling were it not for the war on drugs, but human smuggling is simply not profitable enough to inspire the sort of ingenuity the war on drugs has. In some senses drug smuggling has served to subsidize human smuggling. By making the discovery of routes exceptionally profitable, it has opened up new paths which the human smuggler can then exploit at little cost².

Of course, as I said, many may argue that these costs are justified, that the need to keep people from harming themselves with drugs is sufficiently important to tie up troops in foreign lands, to tolerate increased funding of warlords, and to help subsidize the penetration of our southern border. That is a possible position, and I am sure some will make that argument.  All I ask is that, when we debate thew war on drugs, that we are honest about the costs. Often we hear that the only people who are harmed by the war on drugs are a few drug users. But, if we are to be honest, we have to admit that the effects of making drugs illegal reaches far beyond those who use, or even sell, drugs, and touches the entire world.

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

1. Now that Chavez has oil revenues with which to fund rebel groups, Columbia insurgents may be able to survive a loss of drug revenues. Unfortunately the time to legalize drugs and starve them into submission may have passed. But perhaps Chavez will not ahve the longevity of the Castro regime, and we will again have a chance to do so.

2. People will argue that there is no cost in establishing a smuggling route, but they are mistaken. Admittedly, it is not a traditional monetary cost, but to establish a new smuggling route it must be explored, tried out, and run several times to see if the users will be caught. The lower profit human smuggling enterprises do not support as much willingness to be caught as the high profit drug routes do. In that way, the drug profits serve as a subsidy for the human smugglers.

I think one thing which plagues the war on drugs, perhaps more than most other areas of public policy, is the tendency for simple, well meaning policies to produce unintended consequences. Of course this is a problem for every area of public policy, from the way that welfare helped create unemployment and single parent families to the host of unintended beneficiaries receiving farm subsidies, every policy is subject to unintended consequences. However the war on drugs seems to have more than its fair share.

Perhaps it is because policy tends to be more driven by emotion than in other areas. People do tend to get more worked up about drug dealers than farm policy. Or maybe it is because there are few whose livelihood depend on drug policy,  so less independent analysis is done of drug laws than business regulations. Whatever the reason, drug regulations tend to produce more side effects than other areas of the law.

Perhaps an example will help. It isn't exactly a drug law example, but from the related area of regulation of alcohol.

Recently I was discussing the laws in the United States restricting access to alcohol by those under 21¹. This was around the same time I was writing on the same topic in this blog. My conversation followed the normal pattern for such discussions. As there were no teeangers present, no one mentioned that they could join the military but not buy a beer, but the other tired old topic did arise. That being Europe's general lack of age based drinking restrictions.

However, I will not be mentioning that particular topic. First, because it has been discussed ad nauseam. Second, and more importantly, because it is one of those topics which "everyone knows", yet about which almost nothing concrete can be established. Yes, Europe lacks laws concerning drinking by those under 21, but what effect does that have? Many people have provided anecdotal evidence of teens being "more responsible" about alcohol, but is it true? Europe not only has no laws about drinking under age, but it also differs in a number of other respects. For example many nations have very harsh laws concerning drinking and driving, so it is quite possible teens do not drink and drive more because of those laws than because of the liberal drinking restrictions. The point being that it is very hard to control for other differences, making it a very poor example.

That being the case, I am going to avoid the argument that by prohibiting teen drinking we create a more irresponsible attitude toward drinking among teens. It is possible that is the case, it is possible that the opposite is true. Since I can't make a strong case either way, I will focus on what I can prove, that our age based restrictions tend to promote excessive binge drinking.

Now, let me start by saying that the purpose of these restrictions is quite simple. The laws exist to keep teenagers from drinking and to prevent adults from selling or giving alcohol to teens. And by and large the laws do achieve that end. Not completely, as the amount of teenage drinking proves, but they definitely make it more difficult for teens to drink, and much more difficult for them to obtain alcohol². So, in this regard they are successful.

What I am going to add, however, is that precisely because they succeed there, they lead to more dangerous behavior among those teens who do drink. Not only that, but that such an outcome is a logically necessary outcome of the law.

Think about the situation of the teen who wants to drink. Provided he does not ahve a willing older sibling or friend, he is unlikely to have regular access to alcohol, which means that when he does have access, he is going to purchase as much alcohol as his limited means allow. As he will be unable to go back for more should he run out, it only makes sense o adopt an attitude that too much is better than not enough.

However, having obtained the alcohol he is confronted with a new problem, leftovers. As he is a teenager he is not supposed to be in possession of alcohol. He can hardly bring it home and store it for later. He doesn't want to keep it in his car or home, as it is illegal for him to possess it. So, as a result, he will make sure he consumes every bit of alcohol in his possession. Leftovers will simply be wasted, as they cannot be kept for later.

Now I am not about to commit the mistake so many do after raising such issues, and follow up an unintended consequence with the argument "thus we should eliminate the drinking age". The simple fact that a law has unintended consequences does not logically mean that the law should be repealed. What it does mean is that we should examine the law again, and see if we still believe it is important enough to maintain despite the additional costs³. In some cases that may mean that a law should be repealed, but in many others, most likely we will decide that the law is still worth the added costs.

However, even that was not my main point. I do not want to argue the merits of enforcing a minimum age for drinking. All I wanted to point out was that laws, even seemingly simple laws such as those concerning drinking ages, often have unintended consequences. And not just unintended consequences, but consequences which are contrary to the goals of the law itself. Doubtless those who wrote laws about drinking ages were equally opposed to teenage binge drinking, yet inadvertently that is precisely what they encouraged.

And that is my point. When we look at drug laws, either in hindsight or when proposing new laws, we need to look not just at the explicit goals and the obvious effects, we need to delve a bit deeper and try to see if there are any other effects, any unintended consequences, and ask ourselves if the law is still worth enforcing given all we know about the costs.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. This is a good analogy to the federal take over of drug laws I mentioned in my last post. Drinking age used to be purely the concern of the states, but the federal government, using highway funds to blackmail states, forced the states to follow federal policy. This is a topic I may deal with at greater length in my main blog, as federalism is a major topic there, but for the moment I would point out that, even where the federal government has no explicit enforcement policy, the control of purse strings gives the federal government effective control. Thus even matters which are nominally controlled by the states are often really controlled by the central government.

2. I cannot speak for the present day, but during my own teen years we often commented on the fact that it was easier to find drugs than alcohol. Perhaps I should mention that as another unintended consequence, the relative difficulty of finding alcohol versus drugs leading those seeking an altered state to drugs rather than alcohol. But then again, it is hard to say whether using drugs or drinking alcohol is a worse choice, especially given the results of long term alcohol abuse. So I think I will leave that topic alone for the moment.

3. In the case of drinking ages, I think most will consider them worth maintaining even with the added incentive to excessive drinking by teens. And, I must admit, I can understand the logic. The teens who are driven to binge drinking are those teens who would be drinking whether or not the laws were in effect. However, were the laws repealed, there are doubtless other teens who would drink who currently do not. So, by keeping the law you simply increase the amount consumed by a set number of teens. If you repeal the laws, those specific teens will still drink, just not quite so much, but another set of teens will also begin drinking. So the laws limit the number of individuals who drink, even if it does increase slightly the amount drunk per person.

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

POSTSCRIPT

Please do not think that I am being one sided because of the example I provided, I want to look for unintended consequences of legalization as well as criminalization. I even want to look for the unintended results of allowing greater variability between the states. (For example, to find fault with my favorite cause, federalism, there is a great likelihood of cross border smuggling should a state enact sweeping legalization without their neighbors doing the same. This would doubtless create a very profitable criminal traffic into neighboring state, offsetting much of the decline in crime legalization would bring by creating a matching, or even greater, increase in crime in nearby states.)

I only chose a law relating to criminalization because such laws are all we currently have. At present legalization is a dead issue, the federal government having refused to allow a handful of states to enact even  limited medical marijuana laws. As I have to work with what I have available, I am forced to draw examples from the laws making drugs illegal. Were there legalization measures available to criticize, I would take those on as well. Unfortunately that is not an option at the moment.
 

I just noticed that this blog was featured on the opinion page, so I wanted to say thanks to the Townhall editorial staff for giving this blog a little attention.

It is still in its infancy, not quite as well developed as my other blog. For instance, I am sure readers will notice that I have tendency to fluctuate between an impartial review of the war on drugs and a desire to present arguments for my own position. But I am slowly working out all the kinks, forcing myself to tone down my own opinion, and even rethinking which topics I want to cover, as I noticed even my selection of topics was a bit biased. Hopefully I am getting closer to what I want, a fair evaluation of the measures proposed and taken in the war on drugs. Not completely free of my own bias, but not dominated by it either. It is a tough line to walk, but I think I am making some progress.

Well, let me know what you think. Anyone who drops by, either from the Townhall featured blog link, or from the links on my main blog, add a comment to tell me your opinion. Make a few allowances for being relatively new, but don't hold back too much. A compulsive writer like me, I can take criticism, I know I have had enough on my other blog.

This is a bit off topic, but as it relates to addiction, I suppose it falls within the scope of this site.

Whenever discussing mental illness, including addiction, with those who favor a biological explanation, it is almost inevtiable that someone will bring up the fact that this or that mental illness causes chemical, or electro-chemical, changes in the brain, and then use this to argue that only chemical intervention can cure the disorder.

I just don't see how that follows.

First of all, thought itself is nothing but an electrochemical process in the brain. Thoughts cause electrochemical changes. So why could not those electrochemical changes counteract the changes caused by a mental disorder?

But even if we assume that the electrochemical changes caused by thought for some reason could not correct the changes caused by illness, then why could thought not overcome the impulses caused by those problems. For example, if I touch an open flame, a strong biochemical signal tells me to withdraw my hand, yet I can force myself to keep my hand there. So there is nothing absolute about a biological urge. We can still overcome it.

This is not to say chemicals can be of no help. Obviously a healthy dose of morphine would make it easier to ignore the impulse telling me to take my hand out of the flame. And perhaps various psychiatric medications can be of help. I just don't see how anyone can argue that they are the sole possible cure.

But, as I said,  this is a bit off topic. I only mention it as people sometimes argue that addiction is also uncontrollable, and for the reasons mentioned above, I cannot agree with that position either. However, we are drifting a bit far afield form my declared topic, so I will cut things short.

As a final thought I will simply offer this, that were addiction utterly incurable without pharmaceutical assistance, how did we ever have any former addicts before pharmaceuticals were developed?

POSTSCRIPT

Note that my final sentence also applies to those on the other end of the spectrum who are extreme proponents of 12 step programs. Most are quite modest in their claims, but I have met a few who claim there is no recovery without a 12 step program. To which, again, I must reply, then how did we ever have former addicts before the 12 step program was developed?

My complaint with the American media is not so much that they are biased, as that they are biased yet pretend to be neutral. It is why I go so much easier on the openly opinionated press of other nations. While British newspapers, for example, may be even more biased that the bulk of American media, most of them are openly so, which makes it easier for their readers to evaluate their content. If you know that a source is biased, you can mentally adjust for that bias, and reach something approaching the truth. For example, if you know you are reading a liberal source, when they blame every misfortune on the president, you know to take it with a grain of salt. However, when you read that the president is to blame in an ostensibly neutral source, you take a very different meaning from it.

So, as I respect those who openly proclaim their bias, I am going to explain my position on drug legalization up front. Now, I hope this will be, in some ways, unnecessary, as I will try to present my analysis of drug laws in as unbiased a manner as possible. But as it is possible, maybe even likely, that my own beliefs will color my analysis, despite my efforts to remain unbiased, I feel I should tell everyone from the start what I believe and why. Armed with that information, should my writing prove more biased than I think, readers will be able to assess what is unbiased evaluation of drug laws and what is just my opinion.

From the few essays here and those in my other blog, it is clear that I believe in drug legalization. And by legalization, I mean not just allowing people to use currently illicit recreational drugs, I mean total legalization, the creation of a free market in both recreational and prescription drugs, as well as tobacco and alcohol¹. Obviously states will still have the power to decide what laws will be applied with regard to minors², for the simple reason that minors lack full legal rights³ of adulthood, but other than that I would prefer to see no restrictions.

My belief in legalization rests on a number of foundations. The original reason, and still one of the primary reasons, is what some would call a theoretical basis, though I think it is remarkably practical. It is summarized best by the quote I posted yesterday from von Mises, arguing that if the state can control what is good for one's body, then there is no reason to keep the state from regulating what is good for one's mind. On, to put it more plainly, once you allow the state to tell people what is good for them in one area, there is nothing to stop it from telling them what is good for them in all areas.

For those who doubt that drug laws can lead to a loss of rights, I would ask that they look at drug forfeiture laws⁴. Traditionally, US law has not deprived criminals of their property. Yes, stolen goods were usually restored to their owners, ill-gotten gains could not be used to post bail, and, more recently, some laws existed to keep criminals from profiting from their illegal acts, but that was it. Excluding the taking of items to be used as evidence, the law did not concern itself with goods which were not actually stolen or contraband. Drug laws have changed that. Having managed to demonize drug dealers sufficiently that citizens no longer worry about an abrogation of their rights, laws now allow for the confiscation of goods involved in only the most tangential way. And before people think I am crying about the yachts of drug kingpins, I would point out that the cars of drug users are often seized as well, along with possessions of people uninvolved in drug deals in any way. For example, a private charter plane, where a passenger is later found to be smuggling drugs, can be seized, even though the owner was completely unaware of the smuggling. Of course he can apply to get back the plane, but again, our fear of drugs has warped the law enough that he has to prove his innocence to have his property returned. All of which is quite contrary to our legal traditions. But by introducing the assumption that citizens must be protected form themselves, we have opened the door to all sorts of abrogations of individual rights. That the state has been rather modest in its aims so far is no guarantee it will always be so.

However, my argument does not rest solely on this one argument. I also have several pragmatic supporting arguments. From the way Prohibition created a permanent, deeply embedded criminal class, it seems evident that the war on drugs could easily create a similar new criminal class, which might even survive drug legalization. Even if that does not come to pass, it is evident that much of our criminal violence has a basis in drug laws. I am not foolish enough to argue that legalization will end all of that violence, or even end all of that crime, but it will certainly reduce the motivation behind much of that violence, leading to some reduction.

Nor is that all. From funding communist rebels in Columbia to filling jails resulting in the release of other violent criminals, the drug laws have had several negative side effects, unforeseen at the time the laws were passed. In an essay of this sort, I hardly have the time to go into every possible effect, but perhaps a few in the realm of foreign affairs will help. Our drug laws raise the price of heroin drastically  providing funding for warlords in Afghanistan and Thailand, while cocaine funds revolutionaries throughout South America. Our drug eradication programs have tied up both money and military resources in a number of nations when we need them elsewhere. And traffic in marijuana, cocaine and heroin has established many routes across our southern border which are used not only to smuggle drugs, but immigrants as well. Without the drug trade having blazed the trail, it seems unlikely that so many routes would have been found for human smugglers to exploit⁵. Doubtless human smuggling would exist even were there never any drug smugglers, but the fact that drug smugglers have established routes across the border has certainly made the business of human smuggling much easier and more profitable.

Having explained what harm I think drugs laws do⁶, I suppose I should spend a moment explaining my understanding of the possible harm done by legalization.

The most common argument against legalization is that removing existing laws will result in an increase in drug use, most often argued as an increase in youthful drug use. However, as I have explained elsewhere, I don't think this is as much of an issue as some would believe.  I believe that those who would become addicts seem unlikely to be deterred by laws against drug use. As they are willing to suffer withdrawal and all the other health problems associated with addiction, as well as the social stigma, just to use drugs, they are very unlikely to give up drug use just because of the threat of being arrested. So, that means that the only people who are likely to be deterred from drug use by laws are the casual drug users, or those who use "soft"⁷ drugs. However, I would argue that even now there is little deterring casual drug users. As I wrote elsewhere, thanks to our "two tiered" enforcement system, the middle and upper class drug users have little to fear from drug laws. If caught, they can enter treatment and almost always avoid any kind of jail sentence, even for repeated offenses. Given this, there is no real fear of punishment keeping most casual users from using drugs, so, were the laws removed it would not make the climate much more attractive for casual use than it is now.

There are other argument, that crime would rise, that other societal breakdown would occur, and so on. As I can't address every concern here, let me promise that I will speak to each individual claim in the future. What I will say here is that I am aware that legalization may not be completely pain free. Very little in life is absolutely good without any ill effects, and why should this be any different. What I do think is that the painful effects will be less severe than critics think. There will surely be some problems, but I just think the benefits far outweigh the likely harm, and, in the long run, most of the ill effects will be better handled with approaches less intrusive than the war on drugs. But, as I said, I will have to make those arguments later, as answerring every possible problem would make this already long essay far too long.

Having explained my reasoning, let me add one final item. While I think the nation as a whole would benefit from drug legalization, I think there is an even better solution. Were the federal government to eliminate its drug policy, and allow each state to chart its own course, we would probably be in a better position to argue these points. As the attempts by several state to legalize medical marijuana show, there would definitely be some diversity in drug laws but for federal interference. With differing state laws we could actually see what problems and benefits come with differing laws. In addition, states could more closely tailor their laws to the beliefs of the residents.Not just that, but each state could look at the results of other states' experiments and adopt those policies that seemed most beneficial.

From our point of view, probably the greatest benefit of independent state policies would be that, instead of arguing purely theoretical positions, or relying on historical analogies, we could look at the results in states of varying policies and use those examples to explain what the costs and benefits of policies are. In other words, eliminating our uniform federal policy would allow us to have some degree of local experimentation, and take this debate out of the theoretical realm. Perhaps such experiments would prove my beliefs wrong,a nd show that drug legalization was a bad idea all along, but at least I would know it with some degree of certainty. At the moment, our imposed federal policy prevents the states from deviating at all from the single allowable set of drug laws⁸.

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

1. I find it odd that there are some who argue for drug legalization, yet support the nanny state restrictions on tobacco. It seems a completely untenable position, as the same arguments for "protecting" adults from tobacco apply to "protecting" them from drugs. If we allow one form of paternalism, there is no rational argument against the other.

2. Whether restricting access by law works or not is a question open to debate. In an ideal world, I would want parents to perform this function rather than the state, but fighting for drug legalization is enough of an uphill battle without adding the argument about giving children access to alcohol as well. So this topic can be left for another day.

3. Exactly how the rights of minors differ from those of adults is arguable. Obviously they enjoy all the legal protections of life, liberty and property that an adult does. Historically, they have been assumed incompetent to enter into certain obligations, but not all. This seems reasonable, but where we draw the line is open to debate. However, as children do lack some ability to contract, this opens the door to legally restricting their rights to purchase specific goods, to operate cars, and so on. As I have not spent much thought on this question since turning 21, the last time I cared very deeply about the topic, I will have to postpone any discussion until I can give it more thought.

4. As I plan to write a more detailed article on the way our view of rights, the role of police, and the way the government treats citizens has been changed by the war on drugs, I am providing only a short example. The essay should be written this weekend, so this single example won't have to stand alone for long.

5. It is arguable whether coyotes would have created these smuggling routes exclusively for human trafficking had the routes not already existed for smuggling drugs. On a dollar per pound basis, even marijuana is far more profitable than humans, and due to the need for oxygen and minimal food and water, as well as a need to keep temperature from rising too high, drugs are far easier to move. Given that, it seems most likely the human traffic is simply piggybacking on known drug routes and would be greatly reduced were there not drug routes already established. But that is a sufficiently intricate topic that I will put it off until I can deal with it on its own.

6. Obviously, this is not an exhaustive list. I have not even touched on a topic personally important to me, the way drug laws have harmed the practice of pain management. But I do not want this article to run on too long. So I will be dealing with many other topics in individual essays later. If I failed to mention something, please feel free to post a comment. While I may already be aware of it, and simply omitted it for reasons of space, it is quite possible you have thought of something I missed, so I am very happy to hear from readers about things I might have missed.

7. The distinctions seem a bit arbitrary. Heroin is really the only drug with an easily acquired physical dependency. Alcohol dependency requires quite a while to develop, and claims of physical dependency for other drugs seem to be arguable. However, as people seem to insist on dividing drugs into "hard" and "soft", I suppose we can call heroin, cocaine and amphetamines hard drugs. However, even this is a bit arguable, as people differ on whether MDMA ("ecstasy") is  hard or soft. As it is a variant on amphetamine, I would suppose it is "hard", but due to quirks in the way the body handles the drug, it is not open to the same regular abuse as amphetamines. As I said, the distinction is a bit arbitrary and not one I endorse.

8. On paper the states have control over drug laws, but that is a fiction. As the federal opposition to state medical marijuana laws has shown, the federal government is willing and able to strike down any state laws which deviate from federal drug policy. While the laws are nominally under state control, in practice we have a single drug policy set at the federal level.

This article was originally posted on April 7, 2008 on my blog Random Notes. I am reposting here in its original form (with one spelling correction).

It is a commonplace of argument on both the right and left, the idea that drugs cause crime. The ends of the political spectrum may not agree on much, by they do seem to agree on this, that those who use drugs are somehow possessed and turned from law abiding citizens into raving criminals. The left may laugh at "Reefer Madness" and its depiction of drugs, the right may decry those who abdicate responsibility, or those who blame guns for crime, but both seem to think somehow drugs can create crime.

Sadly, both are wrong. Or mostly wrong.

First, let me admit where they are right. In those who would commit crime, whether or not they were on drugs, the monetary demands of drug addiction can spur them to commit more crimes. But the same can be said of the financial pressures of gambling, or the financial demands of marriage or children. No matter the cause, when a person predisposed to crime feels financial pressure he is more likely to commit a crime, perhaps even commit more crimes than he otherwise would. So, in that way drugs do cause crime, but that is hardly unique to drugs, any financial pressure would do the same.

On the other hand, drugs do not, in themselves, turn those who would not steal into thieves. And I can prove it.

Due to my disorder I have been using opiate pain killers for quite some time, long enough to develop physical dependence. Due to that I am physically indistinguishable from someone addicted to illegal opiates. If deprived of opiates both of us will suffer the same physical discomfort. So, when a very unpleasant doctor twice cut off my supply of pain killers as he thought I was taking "too many", why did I not go on a shooting spree? Why did I not hang out around ATMs waiting to mug someone?

Because I am not a criminal. Neither are the thousands who use opiates medicinally. Even when suffering withdrawal we do not run wild in the streets robbing and stealing to satisfy our needs. Despite the fact that we are filled with drugs indistinguishable from illegal opiates, we remain law abiding citizens.

My point being that drugs do not cause drug addicts to commit crimes. Drug addicts who commit crimes were those people predisoposed to commit crime anyway. But those pushing the "drugs cause crime" are not really interested in the truth. On the right, the line is usually pushed by those who strongly oppose ending the war on drugs, and they use this argument as yet another reason drugs must remain illegal. Those on the left are using it to explain why crime is so high in the inner city, blaming crime on drugs and poverty rather than on personal choice or weak enforcement, and it also provides them with a convenient means to exonerate any specific criminal, allowing them to blame drugs rather than the individual. So, neither side wants to face the truth.

Then again, there is one area where drugs really do cause crime, but, again, it is not an area that either side wants to face.

Being illegal, drugs are sold by criminals. And, just as with alcohol in the 1920's, these criminals have no way to settle disputes other than through brute force. This violence, however, is not inherent in drugs, anymore than the gangsterism of the 1920's was inherent in beer. Schlitz brewing does not send hit men to clear up billing disputes with distributors, because alcohol is legal now. Likewise, were drugs legal, there would not be the street violence we see today. But as that would mean both ending the war on drugs, and accepting that capitalism is beneficial*, neither side wants to embrace that position either.

Now, before I get accused of being a rabid, drug loving libertarian, let me say that there are other arguments for keeping drugs illegal. I have heard many, and , while I still believe that society would benefit on the whole from making drugs legal**, I am willing to entertain any arguments to the contrary***. All I want to point out is that drugs do not turn honest men into criminals and keeping drugs illegal does cause violence among the distributors.

In short, that the conventional wisdom is backwards. Drugs do cause crime, but among the dealers, not the users.

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

* Actually, this argument is doubly bad for the left. Not only does it show that capitalism is effective at solving problems, but also that capitalism brings peace. As the left often pushes the "capitalism causes wars" line, saying that a capitalist market in drugs would end crime is a position completely anathema to most leftists.

** I actually go far beyond many libertarian types, arguing that not only should drugs be legal, but the entire prescription medicine system needs to be scrapped. It is odd, but many I have heard argue that heroin should be sold freely, but penicillin should still require a prescription. I can't make any sense of that argument.

*** For those who argue that making drugs legal would greatly increase usage, I offer this counter argument: If drugs were legal, would you be using them? If not, then why do you think others would? If so, then why do you want the state to substitute itself for your self control, at the same time limiting the freedom of others? On a related note, many states once outlawed sodomy, yet the supreme court overturned those laws recently. How many have gone out and practiced homosexual intercourse just because it is now legal? My point being that making something illegal may deter some from doing it, but not a really significant number. And making something legal once again will not significantly increase the number doing it. This is especially true today, when respect for the law is much lower than it was during prohibition, when illegality had more of deterrent effect than it does today.

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

Postscript

As should be obvious from this essay, I do personally favor legalization of drugs, as I believe adults should be allowed to decide such questions for themselves, rather than having the state tell them what is god or bad to do to themselves. On the other hand, as I stated before, I am a federalist first, so I would gladly see individual state drug policies, freed of the pressure of the DEA and Washington in general, ranging from legalization to complete prohibition, so we could decide once and for all which is the optimal policy.

You see, I think that the increased crime I mentioned above is not offset by any advantages, but I am also willing to be proven wrong. I just think that anyone who proposes prohibition had better show some very impressive benefits to offset the negatives that come with prohibition. I am not saying that is impossible, just that it has not yet been done to my satisfaction.

There are some clarifications in the comments to the original article. The full comments can be read here.

POSTSCRIPT
(Not part of the original article)

I have posted this article in its original form, as , after reading it, I really cannot improve on what I said. It says everything as well as I am ever going to say it. As the argument over the benefits or costs of drug legalization often center on the increase or decrease of crime, I think this is very relevant for this blog.

I would like to reproduce part of two responses I made to comments, as they clarify my thinking.

First, on the likelihood of increased or decreased drug usage (with spelling corrections):

My thinking is that if drugs were legal, some may try them who would not, so the number who had ever used drugs would be a bit higher, but I doubt anyone would become an addict who would not also be an addict while they were illegal.

Then again, maybe the numbers would go up somewhat. Or drop. It is hard to predict such hypothetical with certainty. As I think drugs should be legal on a theory that you can do as much harm to yourself as you want, it really doesn't matter to me. As long as I am not paying someone else's medical bills for his self-abuse, I don't care.

Well, I care on a humanitarian level, but I also respect others enough to think they know better than I do what they should be doing. If someone thinks drugs are his proper course, who am I to tell him otherwise? I lack the arrogance it requires to tell someone I know best what he should do with his life.

So, I think it really doesn't matter that much if usage goes up or down, but I have a suspicion that it would not rise greatly. (Drinking rose somewhat in the 1930's, but (1) we had a depression to make people drink and (2) people respected the law a lot more in the 1920's than today.)

Second, my thoughts on the relative levels of crime and the benefits of federalism :

And, I have to admit that, were crime reduced by eliminating drug dealing as a career, it would not be a 1 to 1 drop. Without the allure of massive profits, some of the criminals may not be drawn to crime at all. Others would probably still find another sort of crime to pursue, so criminality would not drop as much as some argue.

If nothing else, allowing some states to legalize, some to ban, and others to stay somewhere in the middle would allow us to see just what the pros and cons would be. Yet another advantage to a true federalism, without policy being influenced so strongly by the central government.

I may have to revisit this topic in the future, but for now I think I will let this post stand as my final word on the subject. When combined with the comments I reproduced above, there really is very little left for me to say.

Until I get around to writing updated versions of my older essays, anyone interested can read my original essays on my main blog, Random Notes. Here is a list of all posts which are relevant to the subject matter of this blog:

Standing By My Principles
For Your Own Good
Medical Regulations
The Drug Addiciton Excuse
The State And Morality

In addition, as so much in the war on drugs is based on the idea that those making laws know better than individuals what is in an individual's best interest, I would suggest the following:

A Question
Arrogance
The Essence of Liberalism
Arrogance and Gun Control
Copyright as Politics
A Very Simple Truth
Our View of Our Fellow Citizens
Those Other People
Seeing People As Stupid
The Virtue of Humility
Man's Nature and Government

As I have already opened myself up to angry comments by suggesting that those who would make drugs illegal are engaging in a thought process similar to that liberals use to justify their policies, I might as well close with this quote:

However, the case is not as simple as that. Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society than that done by narcotic drugs.

These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naive advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, and religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.

Ludwig von Mises Human Action, 3d Revised Edition (1963)  pp. 733-4

Though it will doubtless draw a few angry responses, I think that quote, more than any other, explains why I see this issue as an urgent one. The war on drugs, more than almost any other, is an area where the right and left agree that the state needs to control people's actions. And that makes it a real threat to future freedoms.

It is always through popular causes, and through persecution of reviled groups, that government power grows. No dictatorship ever started by declaring that the state would revoke all freedoms, instead they begin as limited measures against unpopular practices.

The war on drugs is not yet being used to eliminate personal freedoms on a large scale. But already it has caused the loss of many personal freedoms. From property forfeiture, to searches of chidlren's lockers, to random drugs testing, to cavity searches at airports, to government payments to media outlets which promote an anti-drug message, the war on drugs has been used to justify actions that would have, in past times, been seen as excessive.

It is time that we take a careful look not only at why we are fighting the war on drugs, but how. Perhaps some will not agree with me, and will think the war on drugs is justified. However, whether or not you think drugs should be legal, we can still agree that fighting the war on drugs should not mean the revocation of important personal freedoms unless absolutely necessary.

So, even if you think drugs should remain illegal, please read on, as some of the other questions I address here will certainly be of interest. You don't have to want to legalize drugs to worry about some of the questions raised by issues such as seizures, forfeiture rules, the laws concerning searches and seizures, or the prosecution of doctors on rather flimsy pretexts in "doctor shopping" cases.  One does not have to favor legalization to have an interest in preserving one's rights.

And, in the interest of appealing to a broader readership than just those interested in legalization, I plan to follow my original promise. I will not focus exclusively on legalization, but will also will examine questions raised by current enforcement policies. I will ask whether, granting the assumptions behind the current war on drugs, we are adopting policies which will achieve those goals, and also whether those policies which seem to violate traditional legal rights do so for a good reason.

In short, I hope to adopt to whatever degree possible an unbiased approach to the war on drugs. I have made clear my own feelings, and my readers can choose to agree or disagree with my position. But, I will try, to the best of my abilities, to keep that bias out of my writing, and report on topics relating to the war on drugs and evaluate them in as unbiased a manner as possible.

Of course, should my bias start to show, I am sure I can count on my readers to point that out as well.

I imagine those who read my introduction, or are familiar with my writing on my main blog, Random Notes, are a bit surprised at my first two posts. As I have been a rather vocal advocate of not just legalizing illicit drugs, but also removing all prescription drug laws and eliminating medical licensing, it must seem strange to hear me arguing that it makes sense to more harshly punish drug users.

However, my first two posts are consistent with my stated goals. As I wrote in my introduction, I plan not to argue for drug legalization, but to assess the war on drugs as a whole. I think looking critically at drug laws will lead to the conclusion that drugs should be made legal, but I do not plan on publishing nothing but polemics.

In both of my first two posts, I am not suggesting that the present war on drugs is correct, I am simply arguing that, were one to accept that the purpose of drug laws is to discourage casual drug use, then allowing therapy instead of punishment produces the opposite outcome.

For those who came here expecting me to argue for the elimination of drug laws, worry not, I will be making plenty of arguments against the present drug laws. But, for now, I am taking a critical look at the laws as they now exist and asking what they do right, and what they do wrong, when viewed on their own terms. Once that is done, I plan to examine the posts I wrote on this subject on my other blog,  revise and elaborate on the best of them, and post the results here. That should provide more than enough material for those on the legalization side of the debate.  So you need only bear with me a little longer.

We as a nation are rather confused in our handling of drug users. When it comes to those who sell drugs, we generally agree that they are criminals who deserve punishment. Admittedly when it comes to very low level street dealers, many teens or users themselves, there are some grey areas, at least for some, but for the most part, we agree that upper level dealers are properly treated as criminals.

When we get to users, we become much more confused. The problem is that users are exactly those people drugs laws are supposed to help, but they are also part of the problem, leading to a rather uneven handling. Not that policy questions alone lead to our strange handling of drug users. The fact is that most people worry that someone they love may be a drug user, while very few of us are connected to a drug dealer. So it is easy to argue for harsh treatment of dealers,but every parent worries that maybe, despite their best efforts, it will be their child who will be the victim of harsh laws against users, leading us to create the peculiar "two tier" treatment of users we see today.

Perhaps it would be best to start by looking at the most common rationale for the war on drugs.

While there exist a few other arguments, most often the war on drugs is justified by pointing to the harm drugs do to the users. Obviously, this is often extended to include the harm done tot he families of the users, and the costs to society as a whole, but, by and large the war on drugs is justified as a means of protecting people from their own worst impulses. It may not be worded that way, but that is the argument.

And the laws tend to follow that argument. Dealers, who provide the drugs,a re treated more harshly than users. The simple status of being a drug addict is not subject to punishment¹, while possession is. However, possess for personal use carries much elss penalty than possession for sale. While there is some back and forth between those who would more harshly punish users and those who favor treatment, in general both groups have followed the principle that users are to be treated more leniently than dealers.

Of course, this position is something of a compromise. Legally, the buyer in a criminal transaction is either treated equally or worse. A fence is usually more culpable than the burglars who supply him. Likewise the man hiring a killer is usually seen as just as guilty as the assassin. Legal logic would argue that, as selling drugs is a crime, buying them should be seen as every bit as criminal an act. However, that is not the logic of drug laws.Drug law logic is driven by two positions, the therapeutic and the quality of life arguments.

The therapeutic position, as seen most clearly in those who argue for legalizing drugs to "treat it as a medical problem", is probably most consistent with the overall theory of the war on drugs. Arguing that we have drug laws to protect people from the harms drugs do, they say that we should not punish users, but should instead force them into therapy to help them stop using drugs. Their position is that the laws are not intended to punish people but to stop them from using drugs, so jail time for drug users does not make sense.

Now some also adopt this position from a self-interested position as well. As I said above, many worry that they themselves may be arrested, or their children, or someone else close tot hem, and so argue for therapeutic treatment not just from an abstract beliefs but from tangible fear that they may see someone close tot hem end up in jail were we to punish users. However, motives are not truly relevant, as the end result is the same regardless of why people adopt a given position.

In opposition to the therapeutic position is an argument I call "quality of life". These people argue that the alw doe snto exist to protect any individual drug user but society as a whole, and by stopping drug dealing entirely we will do more good than in therapeutic intervention for a single user. They contend that by jailing users we will discourage other buyers, destroying the demand side of the drug trade and end the war on drugs entirely. They also argue that drug users cause a number of problems for innocent citizens, such as the crime and violence associated with drug markets, and so arresting drug users also helps these innocents. (Which is why I called this position "quality of life".)

From the conflict between these two groups we get our current two-tiered justice system for drug users.

On paper, most jurisdictions don't explicitly have a two-tiered system. If one looks at the laws alone, in almost every jurisdiction the advocates of punishment won. The laws almost inevitably prescribe a jail sentence for possession of drugs for personal use. A few have diversion programs, but due to limited funds, this really only applies to a tiny percentage of users. For the most part, if one looks only at the laws as written, drugs users, just like dealers, are facing time in jail.

In practice, that is not the entire story. More often than not, when charged with simple possession a defendant can provide evidence of entering a treatment program to have his sentence reduced or even suspended. He can "enter a treatment track" rather than being placed in the "punishment track". Of course, this option is only available to those who can afford to pay for treatment, or fortunate enough to get a place in a publicly funded treatment program, so not all defendants avoid punishment. Which means, in practice, we have two systems. The middle and upper classes, as well as some among the lower class, are treated as "addicts" and substitute treatment for punishment, while the rest end up either receiving jail time, or, if they find a sufficiently lenient judge, being released on probation².

The ironic thing is that those who favor therapeutic handling actually end up serving their own cause less well than those advocating punishment. As those who have read my writing know, I favor complete legalization. However, if we adopt the view that the law should be used to prevent people from using certain drugs, then the therapeutic position has less desirable outcomes, and both sides would be better off were they to adopt consistent punishment of users as their policy.

Allow me to explain.

In an earlier post, I argued that the sentence given to users is irrelevant, so long as there is a jail term for drug use, casual users will be discouraged. And no matter how long the jail sentence, dedicated users will continue to use drugs. In writing that I had to explain how drugs laws have also failed to discourage relatively casual drugs use among teenagers, young adults, and even some others. And the explanation for that is, quite simply, that we have this two-tiered system.

Middle and upper class teens use drugs because they do not fear drug laws. Part of this is the normal teenage belief in invulnerability, the belief that the law will never catch them, but that is hardly the main reason. Most teens know at least one friend who was caught, and, under normal circumstances, that would lead them to abandon their belief in invulnerability and opt for a more realistic perspective. The problem is that the realistic perspective still leaves little to fear. Oddsa are good that their friend, when caught, plead guilty and offered to enter treatment, resulting in either probation before judgment or a suspended sentence.Which, obviously, would lead his friends to think that, should they be caught, the same awaits them. When the worst outcome of drug use is mandatory treatment, there really is very little to persuade teens to avoid drug use.

So, were they serious about using the power of the state to stop drug use, those who advocate therapy for users, would be much better off arguing for mandatory minimum sentences for possession for personal use. Were everyone who used drugs facing a mandatory time in jail it really would weed out the casual drug users and leave only the die hard drug abusers. However, with our current system, that si not the case. Provided the casual user is sufficiently affluent to pay for therapy, he really faces very little punishment should he ver be caught. And that does little to dissuade the casual user.

If the purpose of the drug laws is to protect people from themselves, ironic as it sounds, punishing them for drug use is the best way to achieve that.

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

1. This is also partly due to court rulings, making "status" crimes unenforceable. But, in general, there have been few attempts to even make the status of "addict" illegal since the start of the modern war on drugs. A few states tried to add addiction to existing vagrancy laws, but only as a tool to allow them to jail public nuisances, and even those ended when the courts became less tolerant of vagrancy laws in general. However, as this note should already make clear, there are a lot of facets to discussing status crime, so maybe I will have to write about this separately at another time.

2. As anyone who reads my main blog knows, I am far from a bleeding heart liberal, but this system really does favor the wealthy over the poor. Allowing repeated trips to treatment as a substitute for punishment simply means that those who can afford treatment need never fear punishment, while those with less available cash need to worry about jail for even their first conviction.

Which is the best flavor? Is orange rationally better than lemon? How about banana? Is it rationally better to live in a split level house, a rancher or a multi-story home?

These sound like silly, trivial questions, but they illustrate something important. Human valuations are not rational. We cannot say that someone's preference for jeans over dress pants is rational or irrational. And, for the same reason, those who use drugs are not behaving irrationally. They value what they receive from drug use more than they fear the consequences. We may disagree with their valuation, but, whatever we argue, the fact remains that, by their own valuations, drug use is a rational choice for them. And more than that, they value drug use highly enough that they are willing to suffer quite a few hardships to continue using.

Now, this does not say that drug use should be accepted without question. We can clearly make arguments about their decisions. We point out that they are not taking into account all the long term costs and so are not viewing things properly. We can say they are being short sighted in so highly valuing immediate gratification. We can argue that the costs to society are so high that their valuations don't matter. We can argue that their valuation itself shows that they are not competent to make decisions. But there is one thing we cannot do, and that is to argue that they are irrational.

Why does this matter? It matters because it shows that laws against drug use are of very limited utility. Many drugs are relatively innocuous, having minor long term consequences, if any¹. However for drugs such as heroin, with addiction and other consequences, the fact that people would value drug use more than  those consequences suggests that they are not likely to be deterred by most legal prohibitions. Prohibition may stop casual users², and probably does, but for those who are willing to use drugs when they are illegal, the level of punishment is likely not a great deterrent, at least until it reaches relatively severe levels. If one is willing to endure withdrawal, as well as risking hepatitis, AIDS and other dangers, then changing the penalty from 12 months in jail to 18 months is unlikely yo have any impact.

This is important to understand, as, to some degree, it makes a lot of legal debate irrelevant. No one is seriously arguing for felony charges for drug users, much less the death penalty, and short of that, the punishment doesn't matter that much. A day in jail or 2 years makes no difference to the committed drug user, and either is equally effective at deterring casual users. So, looked at this way, the question of how severe penalties should be for users is a waste of time.

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

1. We can argue whether science supports any long term consequences for marijuana, sedatives, and so on. The point being that their long term effects are perceived as, at worst, not worse than alcohol. (Of course, considering the relatively dreadful consequences of long term alcohol abuse, that is not saying a lot.) Even if we accept the most negative studies, the problem is that many users do not, and so see certain drugs as safe. That perception is more important than reality when assessing their decisions, as they will act based only upon their own beliefs.

2. Obviously, not all casual users are deterred by the threat of punishment, but that is usually because they do not believe they will actually be punished. Most teens think they will not get caught, or, if caught, will be sentenced to therapy rather than jail. My point therefore does not apply. There is presently no believable threat of punishment. If these teens really thought they faced punishment, it would not matter if it were a week in jail or a year, they would stop using to avoid that punishment, as I argued. Actually, this may be a subject for another post.

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

POSTSCRIPT

Obviously, I am for legalization, but so long as we imprison drug users, I would argue that a shorter time in jail makes sense. As I said above, the length of the imprisonment really doesn't matter. A short sentence provides enough deterrence to discourage casual users while leaving space free for non-drug criminals without building more jails, and a longer sentence is unlikely to discourage those who continue using drugs despite the threat of punishment.

I am sure others will argue for greater severity, but I just don't see the advantage. Casual users are no more discouraged by 12 months than 1 month, any jail time keeps them from using drugs. And die hard addicts are not going to care if it is a year or two or five. They will continue no matter what.

I am spinning off a second blog, as I have a particular interest in issues surrounding the war on drugs in the US, yet I don't wish to tire my regular readers with endless posts on this topic. So, in the interest of keep my more general blog from being cluttered with articles on this topic, I have created this second blog.

For those who are unfamiliar with my principal blog, Random Notes, allow me to tell a bit about myself, at least as it relates to the topic at hand. I suffer from a peculiar nerve problem which results in rather excruciating pain at unpredictable intervals. It has a number of other effects, but the pain is the main reason I became more interested in the war on drugs.

Previously I shared the libertarian position that ending the war on drugs would have beneficial effects, but I had little real interest in the topic. I always thought it was a huge misstep on the part of the libertarians to push this as a party platform issue, since it made them look foolish. Now, thanks to several personal experiences, I have begun to see that the war on drugs does more than simply create inner city crime and fill our jails needlessly. In the area of pain management recent prosecutions have caused doctors to fear helping their patients.

However, despite my personal feelings on this matter, I do not want to turn this into a doctrinaire site. I plan to make my case for changing our current policies, but where the current policies do work, I will report that as well. I do not believe in hiding facts simply to make my case. And, as I have said elsewhere, I know it is quite possible my position is wrong.

So, in the interest of finding the best approach to the war on drugs, I plan to examine all arguments I find from either side of the issue. Trust me, there are as many bad arguments for legalization as there are for criminalization, and eventually I will get to them all.

Having said all that, I will warn readers that this blog may not be updated as often as the other blog I maintain. Initially there will probably be a few quick posts as I revisit topics I addressed in my main blog, but beyond that it may be updated at a slower pace, as my focus is still on my primary blog. However, come back every so often and check, as I do not plan to forget about this blog either. It simply may be filled at a slightly less manic pace than the one my regular readers have come to expect.