** WARNING: PERSONAL LIBERTARIAN POLITICS AHEAD **
Here goes--my first rabidly political post. Oh, goody! I'm drooling with glee.
The recent hub-bub about lowering the drinking age in Wisconsin for military folks got me all hopped-up frothing and raving again.
Once again I'm struck by the complete absurdity of the War On Some Drugs (WOSD). Our Puritan heritage allows us the nifty double-think trick of legalizing the two most awfully harmful, blatantly addictive drugs known to man...because they're both quite damaging and, we feel, those who experience pleasure MUST be punished later. That is--ethanol causes hangovers, a just retribution for enjoying oneself; tobacco, well, we know how THOSE sinners are punished!
Before I go any further: I argue these points from a completely abstract viewpoint, since I'm a total non-user and non-drinker. I really do have the betterment of mankind at heart :)
So back to the War On Some Drugs. We're in the completely laughable position of fighting a battle we've fought before--Prohibition--that we've been fighting for 30 years; recognizing it, and yet persisting in the insanity. We've created a hugely profitable business with wonderful profit margins; what fool would want to destroy such a lucrative market? The drug suppliers sell natural or off-patent substances, manufactured or harvested generically, which by themselves are worth pennies a dose--at 1000*cost. Sure, they lose the occasional 10% to the Keystone Cops, who trumpet each bust on the evening news like they've shut down drug Y for all of North America this month. In fact it just means Mitsubishi-brand Ecstacy won't be available that evening, we'll have to settle for those crummy Smurf X tabs. Or go sniff glue and gulp Robitussin DM.
Law enforcement, meantime, benefits almost as richly as the suppliers. Sure, most of the officers are honest people just doing their work; they probably even believe in it though how I don't know. Some, I'm sure, gain handsomely themselves; no enterprise this profitable fought by underpaid civil servants escapes corruption. Even the honest ones--well, they're employed by the WOSD, aren't they? And those agencies--DEA, BATF--what will they do if we go sane?
Due process? Out the window; if it's drugs, your stuff (money, home, vehicles, freedom) are confiscated first; you essentially sue to get your own stuff back. I seem to remember the "logic" for this trampling of the Constitution was that those awful, rich cocaine suppliers can afford such great attorneys, why, we've gotta make sure all they can use is our crappy public defender here in Podunkville...Gestapo, anyone? Yep, civil rights are just too inconvenient when you're fighting the noble War On Some Drugs.
The two legal intoxicants kill somewhere around 450,000 people per year; roughly 370,000 from smoking, and another 80,000 or so from drinking. Meanwhile, while true statistics for drug deaths are hard to find, even the most imaginative interpretations of drug-related deaths..."Well ma'am, I'm sorry your son died. He died of drugs; at the time he was hit by a bus, there may have been marijuana in the city somewhere." But guaranteed, deaths due to all illegal drugs together are an order of magnitude less.
When we instituted Prohibition (why don't we remember how badly THAT sucked), ethanol deaths increased dramatically; due to impurity, on-the-sly consumption in dangerous situations, crimes over turf battles, the list goes on. It was a disaster and we quickly came to our senses. Now granted--ethanol wouldn't pass muster with the FDA today by a long shot, but at least what you buy isn't adulterated. The same logic applies to drugs. Today's market is filled with adulterated product made in shoddy labs or diluted with impurities. It's consumed on the sly creating dangerous situations. It's so profitable that it drives a huge criminal industry, and costs us a huge enforcement engine that's ineffectual except to maintain inflated price levels.
Ah--but if we legalize (aka "decriminalize"), the World Will End and people will simply Spiral Out Of Control. Nope. People are remarkably smart if they're given free choice and the information to exercise it. Publish the truth about every substance; an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) and a proper drug insert--just like those pharmaceutical commercials where beautiful people smile and wink knowingly, then the announcer comes on rapid fire and says things like "Do not take Foovamine if you are a person. Or a dog. Or a mammal at all. May cause blindness, itching, auricular necrosis, and supraventricular tachycardia. Talk to your doctor immediately if your fingers turn black and fall off."
I bet that with decriminalization we'd initially see a huge upswing in use--maybe one to five years--followed by a huge decline, probably to current levels or less. Deaths would decrease dramatically; high quality, well-documented substances would curtail the usual junkie overdoses and adulterant toxicity cases. People would exercise their free choice--and learn to protect themselves. Certainly we'd avoid the thousands of unnecessary violence-related deaths; fighting over turf, fighting over money, drug busts gone bad, the whole damn mess.
Hey--we didn't used to have prohibition! It's a fairly recent thing. Let's get rid of it and spend the money on a manned mission to Mars or something.
And oh yeah--the decent people who voluntarily visit forsaken overseas hell-holes and risk their lives for esoteric things like our principles--can we PLEASE let them have a beer?
