I think what should be illegal is marketing/advertising drugs or any other vice, not selling it. If there is a buyer, then the seller is simply fulfilling their demand, but if someone actively tries to create that demand, by glorifying something destructive (like alcohol, drugs or prostitution), and enticing people to use it, then that is a case of trying to exploit others and I believe that is wrong.

This legal approach to drugs would end the problems created by the war on drugs, namely of pushing the transactions conducted in the drug trade into the black market which encourages organized crime which fulfills the role of enforcing contracts and protecting drug property, while at the same time discouraging exploitation inherent in the drug trade by making it illegal to market the stuff.

Mr. Roach should realize that the libertarians have many arguments against the Drug War. When you point that crimes decreased when police increased their presence, one could point out many other causal agents as well such as private security. I sugggest reading Bruce Benson’s work to find out how non-government security works better than government faux security.  http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=21
Also, realize that drugs like cocaine were legal about one-hundred years ago and the crime was not as bad. Of course different races, react differently to incentives considering the races are not just different from the outside. But, the fact is that the drug war has caused more crime than it has decreased since it puts innocent people in jail for non-crimes. Those innocent people will have a recidivism rate. Plus. the police are committing crimes by putting innocent people in jail. Nobody likes to mention that the police are the real criminals because everyone acts like they are just robots and the politicians are the criminals, but the police can refuse to carry out unconstitutional and immoral orders. They put the police in “police state”.

Chris,

Excellent work. While I agree with some libertarians, about the over-federalization of police,you do a good job of pointing how wrong some many of them are when it comes to policing.

It does become tiring reading those “cherry picked” links that rarely come with any follow-up.  The links of course make police abuse seem wide spread but when you consider the contact people have with police nation wide everyday they are small. 

Thanks.

Excellent piece.

There would not be as much crime in the first place if drugs were legal. Just as Prohibition caused a big rise in crime in the 20’s, much of the crime today is from drugs and the gangs that control their sale and distribution. Just because the police have cracked down on drugs and lowered the crime rate doesn’t mean that this has no price. It would be cheaper to legalize them and tax them. Any problems caused by drugs to the users of drugs pales in comparison to the problems caused by perfectly legal alcohol.

Mr. Roach makes several good points about the history of law enforcement and the real reduction in freedom caused by high crime. Unfortunately, he also makes several fatal errors.

First, he draws an entirely arbitrary distinction between those who have forcibly harmed no one, yet committed a crime in the eyes of the state (certain gun owners) and those who have...forcibly harmed no one, yet committed a crime in the eyes of the state (drug sellers and pimps). The former are to his mind innocent victims of state aggression, but the latter are not, because he thinks their acts are well and truly criminal.

Why, he does not directly say, but suggests that many drug dealers are violent people. This is undeniably true, but it admits that the real problem are the violent acts against persons and property. It has nothing to do with the peaceful act of voluntarily exchanging money for a substance that high and mighty authorities have decided that no one (except sometimes themselves) should ever be able to have, for any reason.

Moreover, if we are to believe that the drug war is somehow beneficial even when it leads to peaceful people disappearing for years into government rape camps, kept on the public dime rather than being self-sufficient members of society, simply because their peaceful act was illegal, why should we not feel the same about gun owners and breakers of environmental regulations? Does Mr. Roach not tell us that “criminals of one kind of crime are more likely to commit another”? After all, most, if not all people, have the capacity to do violence to another.

Fortunately, libertarians realize that imprisoning people for something they may do in the future is not just. It’s not part of conservatism (properly understood) either. There’s a whole other word for it: tyranny.

Next, he facilely attributes the drop in crime to the War on Drugs, citing this “statistical reality” without any actual demonstration of how the connection is causal, or even a significant factor. Other sources for the drop in crime are not even considered. As presented, the notion is not worth much consideration.

Last, and perhaps most significantly, he trumpets a reduced crime rate that, alas, can only be considered reduced when the greatest criminal enterprise of all is ignored: the state itself. As evil as the Mafia or Colombian cartels or street gangs or lone serial killers are, none of them harm as many innocent people as the state. Many people will thankfully never encounter a mugger or kidnapper on the street, but everyone in this country will be robbed, degraded, abused, or worse by the government. Contra Mr. Roach, it is not that libertarians focus monomaniacally on the state, it is simply that they recognize it as the most dangerous criminal of all.

I distinguish avaricious criminals trying to make a quick buck on other people’s misery--drug dealers and pimps--from white collar offenders and gun carrying citizens because, I hypothesize the rates of recidivism for are much higher in the cases of drug dealers and pimps than they are for guys paving over parking lots and carrying a gun in their glove box for self defense. The reason is that one of these behaviors is anti-social and unnecessary, the latter are easy to commit by accident or involve laudable motives like defense of self, hearth, and home.

I don’t see why it’s tyranny to accomplish an important goal, stopping violence, by creating an easy-to-prove offense that sorts out avaricious law-breakers from the ordinary community.  This is kind of my point.  There are people called criminals. They are anti-social.  What they do is what we ordinarily think of as crime.  Some of it is statutory like drug-dealing, but much of it has been a crime since ancient times like murder, rape, robbery, extortion, etc.  There are other people who are basically law-abiding, but sometimes get caught in the net of malum prohibitum offenses.

Anti-social criminals deal drugs; they also commit many other crimes.  And exhibit A is that when we lock up lots of them, violent crime goes down (just as it went down a great deal during the higher incarceration/institutionalization rates of the 1950s). 

Yes, I understand there are other causes, but the Levitt paper cited above does a good job of disaggregating causes and high incarceration for drug offenses, particularly of young minority men, is having a big impact. And, frankly, I find the suggestion that “rent a cops” are why crime is going down kind of laughable, but I will read the paper.

All this stuff about the drug dealers’ natural rights and the state being a “criminal” is kind of laughable.  We need a government, otherwise the barbarians will take over. Sometimes it taxes too much and pursues bad policies, but America today is no tyranny, and anarchic places like Somalia or Lebanon are, quite frankly, plaes you wouldn’t want to live. Intemperate language on this issue is one of many reasons libertarians have no credibility and are boring to talk to. 

Ideally the goverment does the bidding of the law-abiding productive class and keeps anti-social types and the unproductive in line.  Drug laws do this well, and they sensibly distinguish the comparatively less harmful users from dealers. 

You need food, clothing, and shelter and have a right to earn a living, worship God, protect yourself, and pursue a virtuous life. You don’t need to get rich quick selling crack, using violence to preserve your gang’s turf. These are bad people; I’m glad we can identify them easily with drug laws. 

Consider the implicit assumption of the prohibition argument:  Bloods, Crips, and other gangs would just suddenly quit being scumbags if drug dealing were legalized.  These drug dealers are not going to get jobs where they have to show respect for their boss, show up on time, and cut off their “corn rows” if drugs were legalized tomorrow, just as the mafia did not disappear in the 1950s,instead switching its focus to such varied rackets as extortion, the garment industry, prostitution, and gambling.  I’d frankly rather have the natural scumbags directed towards drug dealing--which is easy to find and prove--than have them move to commercial kidnapping, child prostitution, or something worse.

Mr. Roach’s justified homicide statistics seem moot given that five times as many Americans - some 2500 , were murdered last year in internecine wars fought over illicit drug profits-- Pharmacists and distillers do not as a rule shoot their customers.

Seeing the overflow of superfluous GWOT hardware driving SWAT tactics might drive Burke to the nearest laudanum shop in Gin Lane.

‘We need a government, otherwise the barbarians will take over.’

We have one, yet the barbarians took over years ago. In fact, the government is largely peopled by the worst of them. George Bush is responsible for ruining far more lives than the average drug dealer ever has.

Perhaps true, M, but thankfully a great many of them wear towels on their heads and aim to kill our people when they’re not smoking hashish.

Mr. Roach is wrong the war on drugs has been a disaster. Prisons are swamped with non violent felons. These people are exposed to rapists, murderers armed robbers etc. It becomes a college for criminals. As one who has worked in many prisons,in construction work, I can say that most prisons harden people not reform them. The control of vice drugs,prostitution,homosexuality, abortion and gambling belong under the states,in our Constitution. Get the federal government out these areas. The states usually handle these matters as short term misdameaners. For most of these acts, 30 days in jail or fines maximum. The only major felon who should get a long term is the abortionist. Prison belongs for violent felons.It costs too much money and giving power to the police to do otherwise. We could fire a lot of prison guards and power hungry cops,for the benefit of all of us.

I have to say I am more in agreement with he Libertarians here.  I have given you high marks in the past but to defend the war on drugs is a loser.  It ascribes more power to the state and your arguments are replete with false dichotomies, such as if we don’t have don’t have the state we are in Lebanon.  Eliminating the criminality of drug dealing will eliminate the criminal element being drawn to it, period.  Are you suggesting that the Crips and Bloods will become white collar criminals?  I don’t believe that we as free citizens can ever accept the notion that harmless individuals need to be institutionalized for the good of us all.  Keep in mind that you in defense of your arguments pointed out one of the most dangerous aspects of the drug wars.  The ease of finding a kilo of cocaine on somebody, regardless of how that kilo of cocaine got there and wether or not it was planted by the police.  I have heard of instances where the drugs confiscated from criminals has sat in unlocked evidence rooms and then suddenly gone missing.

I’m suggesting the Crips and Bloods will get involved in some other violent racket, just like the Mafia did after prohibition. 

As for the false dichotomies, I was only responding to the intemperate rhetoric of those that call the state “criminal.” It may have some bad laws that need reform, but let’s not lose our minds, shall we?

Anyway, it’s not a question of institutionalizing the harmless.  It’s about institutionalizing the harmful for those things which we can find them guilty of.  I’d arrest these guys for having gold teeth, corn rows, and 25” rims if that were possible too.

I am ignorant and stupid but aren’t libertarians supposed to be against governments that want to round up the pimps and whores and petty criminals, then move on to gun toting bigger criminals, then go for trouble makers like trade unionists. Wilson certainly knew where to put enemies of his righteous crusades. Muslims and lesser races are certainly in great need of rounding up. Once we clean up the streets we can eliminate big government and live in a utopian society of individual freedom and peace. Finally we can carry the great crusade onwards around the world.

At the risk of boring Mr. Roach with more intemperate pronouncements, I will point out the simple moral truth that theft, murder, kidnapping, and enslavement are wrong no matter who does it, even if they are renamed taxation, war, Child Protective Services, and conscription. That the state does things that its citizens would be rightly thrown in jail for doing is proof that it is criminal. It has no special license to violate a man’s rights, especially by punishing him because it is thought likely, at some point in the future, that he may harm someone.

I will also say that I agree with Mr. Roach, in general, that the use of illicit drugs being unnecessary and anti-social. However, I hasten to remind him that the same is true of using alcohol and tobacco.  Someone else has pointed out that the costs of alcohol, both economic and social, probably far exceed that of all of the “hard” illegal drugs combined. Does Mr. Roach support the harassment of peaceful drinkers because of the harm they may cause? If not, why not? I hope that he has come up with a more thoughtful reason than that the state allows one to drink alcohol.

Bentham-style phony “crimes” to imprison “likely” future criminals? A strange new position by TakiMag

“Consider the implicit assumption of the prohibition argument:  Bloods, Crips, and other gangs would just suddenly quit being scumbags if drug dealing were legalized.  These drug dealers are not going to get jobs where they have to show respect for their boss, show up on time, and cut off their “corn rows” if drugs were legalized tomorrow, just as the mafia did not disappear in the 1950s,instead switching its focus to such varied rackets as extortion, the garment industry, prostitution, and gambling.  I’d frankly rather have the natural scumbags directed towards drug dealing--which is easy to find and prove--than have them move to commercial kidnapping, child prostitution, or something worse. “

You know, I have almost always been of the view that the ending of prohibition was the best solution.  But your point quoted above has really given me pause.  Thanks

“Consider the implicit assumption of the prohibition argument:  Bloods, Crips, and other gangs would just suddenly quit being scumbags if drug dealing were legalized.”

When I said above that much of the gang problem was because of drugs being illeagal I did not think that the gangbangers would all become saints if drugs were legalized. I just stated the fact that all of the drug money flowing into their pockets, which they use to buy guns and helps them draw new recruits, would stop coming in, thus reducing their power and influence. The mafia in this country has also cashed in on this drug trade and it is one of the only profitable areas left for them. It ia also one reason they haven’t gone away.

And things have gotten better since the “war” on drugs? Is there an area of life not subject to federal scrutiny, all under the aegis of catching illegal drug profit?

The false claim of a meth lab (the feds were knowningly lying) in the Koresh compound is what allowed National Guard resources to be used in that mess.

Sorry Mr Roach, but your article (and following commentary) do little to convince me of the benefits of the drug war.  Saying that it’s good to have a mechanism (an unjust law) in place that makes it “easier” to do what police are supposed to do well (prevent / prosecute those that break laws) because the “just” laws that everyone(within reason) can agree on are just so hard to prosecute, well, it makes me sad to hear.

Your comment about the Towel Headed folks smoking Hashish is similarly telling of your overall outlook on the people of the world.  I suppose you’re leaning in the direction of blaming Hashish for Terrorism rather than the numerous other arguably legitimate causes for war that people in the Middle East would have with our hegemony over their lands and the product of their soil.  But then I suppose I should take away from your missive that the easiest solution is the best solution; failing that I should go move to Sudan in my ideal state of anarchy if I were to believe otherwise, does that about sum it up?

I’m disgusted at your opinion far more than the opinions of those you criticize, but I do feel critical of them as well, for vastly different reasons.

Michael you’ve really given me something to think about. 

Not sure why “drug laws” are unjust.  They are if you’re a one note Jonnie on libertarianism, but I always that was a foolish view of things unmoored from reality, the experience of mankind since time immemorial, and the requirements of living together in social life. 

I didn’t realize until reading certain libertarian theorists that we couldn’t have laws designed to preserve good order, prevent addiction, preserve the health of the citizenry, move certain vice behind closed doors, and other salutary goals.  There are many unwise laws, but that doesn’t make them all unjust, and even then, one is not justified in breaking every unjust law that one disagrees with.  There are degrees of injustice, not least between laws compelling bad actions or interfering with necessities versus those that merely interfere with amusement, pleasure, or one’s unrestrained freedoms. The latter must almost always be restrained because of the requirement of social life.  (For instance, loud noise, fire

As for “towel heads,” well I’m sorry if I offended you.  You might be offended to know my late grandfather called the Germans “krauts” during WWII, and my other grandfather called the guys trying to kill him “Japs.” The shame of it. Surely America must do some penance for this.

The best critique of the drug war I know of is Richard Lawrence Miller’s
“Drug Warriors and Their Prey”. Another good one is this from a former undercover
narcotics agent:
http://leap.cc/Publications/End_Prohibition_NOW_08-03-08.pdf

@ C. Roach, You’re missing the boat.  You wrote, “I didn’t realize until reading certain libertarian theorists that we couldn’t have laws designed to preserve good order, prevent addiction, preserve the health of the citizenry, move certain vice behind closed doors, and other salutary goals.”

That’s exactly the point.  Who decides what’s “saultary”?  If you take your comment to its next step, alcohol and cigarettes should be illegal.

You also write, “There are degrees of injustice, not least between laws compelling bad actions or interfering with necessities versus those that merely interfere with amusement, pleasure, or one’s unrestrained freedoms. The latter must almost always be restrained because of the requirement of social life.”

My loud music isn’t a problem if no one but me hears it.  A fire in my fireplace isn’t a probelm.  It’s the extension of these “amusements” to the point where they impact others that’s the problem.  Not the amusement itself. 

The general point in response to your essay is the correct one:  The War on Drugs is incredibly expensive and hasn’t worked.  The “War” on Drugs is entering its third, maybe forth, decade.  Drugs are no more expensive or harder to get.  The US has spent untold billions and imprisoned millions, to no avail.

In your comments about the “Crips and Bloods” you ignore the fact that many of these young men are pulled into the drug trade because it is very profitable and flourishes in their neighborhoods.  If drugs were legal, there would be no financial incentive to engage in selling them.

Prohibition is a very apt analogy.

If your goal is simply to incarcerate young men of certain colors, you should come out and say it.  Or move to Singapore.

1)In the single year of 1944 the “Police” of the Major European powers committed more assaults, rapes, robberies, kidnappings, murders, and tortures, especially tortures, than the entire “criminal” population of the Western world did in the 2oth century. And we are supposed to be afraid of the criminals? which set?
2.) I could certainly be set upon by a robber or robbers walking down the street alone at night. I could also be pulled over by a gang of armed “Policemen” searched without cause or warrant (assaulted), fined (robbed), all over a seat belt violation. If I resisted the one (criminal), I’m a hero, if I resist the other (criminals), I’d be hunted down and murdered without mercy. Which should I fear more?
3) By our own definition of crime, there has to be a victem of an action for a crime to occur. Who exactly is victimised by some one taking drugs? Cocaine is a drug, hence a crime, Valium is a healthy substance? Who made up that rule?

The police and the courts are the lowest and dirtiest criminals in our society. The Pig on the street IS the Police State. How far do you have to have your head up your ass not to see that?

Another good thing about the drug war is that it gives police the ability to intimidate
lesser criminals into ratting out bigger ones.  On cop shows like “Law and Order,” the
cops always grab a suspect on the street, frisk him, and pull out a plastic baggie full
of drugs.  Then the cops say, “Look, either we bust you for this, right now, or you tell
us the information we want about the murder suspect who deals to you, okay?  Your choice.”
The suspect naturally rats out the murderer.  If it weren’t for the drug laws, the cops
wouldn’t have leverage with the lesser scumbags who know something about the bigger ones.
And yes, I am making the assumption that scenes like this happen in real life.

@ Caper, I hope you’re joking.  If not, I would point out that it would be simpler if the US just beat up (maybe “waterboarded”?) every “suspect” until he ratted out a bigger scumbag.  That’s a good definition of a police state.

No, McBrown, I’m not joking.  Libertarians are idiots.  The problem with a police state is
not that the state has police powers but that it uses them against law-abiding citizens.
Of course, *from the criminal’s perspective* even the most perfectly just state would *seem*
to be “a police state,” since against criminals the state is supposed to use its police powers
Duh!  Plus, you miss my whole point—why use waterboarding (didn’t you read the article?  physical intimidation
and beatings *were* used pre-Miranda!) to get info. when you can use petty drug charges?  The libertarians
act as though George Walker Bush invented the idea of using force to beat information out
of people—it seems to have been pretty standard back in “the good old days” before the
Warren Court.

Recap:  petty drug charges can be used to make the peons roll on serious offenders.  “Why
not use physical force then?” say the libertarians.  Because we don’t have to!  The
libertarians’ stupid response makes about as much sense as saying, “If teachers can give
detentions to students, where will they stop?  Why don’t they just murder disobedient
students?!” Hence, P. Nucci’s histrionic, hysterical nonsense above about how police
officers are the worse criminals in existence.

Wow, so by your logic we should have maintained the prohibition on alcohol since the mafia moved on to other illegal activities after it ended?

Also, you do know that the vast majority of people that use and deal drugs do not have gold teeth, corn rows, and 25” rims?

I let slide the arrest comment as that is just too moronic to discuss.

@ Caper, What good does name calling do?  It doesn’t promote discussion, that’s for sure. I am an “idiot” because I disagree with you.  Einstein’s definiton of stupidity was doing the same thing over and over again (fighting a never eneding “war"), expecting a different result.  You seem to be the one with the IQ issues.  If you disagree, take it up with him.

Now to respond to your points:  Coming up with artificial laws, governing the behaviour of citizens who aren’t harming anyone (except maybe themselves) as a means of catching someone else is a police state.  That may be acceptable to you.  It isn’t to me and wasn’t to the Founding Fathers.  Read the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, amoung others. 

My waterboarding was a “joke”.  You can look the word up if you don’t know it.

My point was that the US has spent billions and imprisoned millions, for victimless crimes.  It hasn’t increased security of the US one whit.  To continue to do so is “STUPID”.

To throw out personal liberty, so that police have another lever to try and catch criminals, is to throw the baby ("freedom") out with the bathwater.

As I wrote Mr. Roach (bad name for an anti-drug crusader--another “joke"), maybe you should both move to Singapore.  There’s very little crime there.  I’m sure you’d be happy

If the founders were so libertarian, why was sodomy a crime in the founding era?  Why was gambling?  Why did states have established churches?

Libertarians impose their imagination on the past and do not investigate the reality.

@ Roach, Sodomy wasn’t in the Constitution.  The Constituion set forth the guidelines governing what laws could be enacted.  Do you advocate the the elimation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?  Their only purpose is to protect the citizens from the State.  Why don’t we throw out the Second while we’re at it, to make sure the “citizens” can’t fight back.  To come up with laws punishing victimless acts, to get around the intent of the Founders, is exactly the problem. 

You write, “Libertarians impose their imagination on the past and do not investigate the reality.” Since I’m not a Libertarian, I wouldn’t know.

As far as I’m aware though, there were no narcotics laws in the United States until the late 19th century.

McBrown,

“Caper, What good does name calling do?  It doesn’t promote discussion, that’s for sure. I am an “idiot” because I disagree with you.  Einstein’s definiton of stupidity was doing the same thing over and over again (fighting a never eneding “war"), expecting a different result.  You seem to be the one with the IQ issues.  If you disagree, take it up with him.”

First, I call things by their proper names.  It is an end in itself.  If you don’t want to
have a discussion with me then, fine.  I did not call *you* stupid, unless you associate
yourself with the label libertarian.  That’s your choice.  The “stupid” part is not
disagreeing with me—I gave a reason for dismissing libertarianism as stupid.  They disagree
with the truth of the matter.  I just happen to know it.  You also claim to know the truth
of the matter.  So we both are making judgments based on criteria, not name-calling on the
basis of personal disagreement.  As for the neverending war, yes, some wars will never
end.  There will always be murderers, so there will always need to be police making war
on murderers.  There will always be drugs, so there will always be people making war on
them.  The state is in a neverending war with crime.  There will be no final victory, but
winning every battle is well worth it, as the alternative is chaos.  That is not stupid at
all, but realistic. 

“Now to respond to your points:  Coming up with artificial laws, governing the behaviour of citizens who aren’t harming anyone (except maybe themselves) as a means of catching someone else is a police state.  That may be acceptable to you.  It isn’t to me and wasn’t to the Founding Fathers.  Read the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, amoung others.”

The Founding Fathers wouldn’t have approved of laws against “victimless crimes,” eh?  What
of anti-sodomy laws, then?  What of laws for personal morality, like laws against
pornography?  What about Blue Laws?  And Mr. Roach provides strong reasons for criminalizing
drug usage. 

“My waterboarding was a “joke”.  You can look the word up if you don’t know it.”

Most libertarians use precisely this logic, and they don’t seem to be joking (though the
joke is on them).  So there was nothing to indicate that you were joking.  Read Paul
Craig Roberts’ stuff—he would say the same thing you did and with a straight face.  So,
given libertarian positions these days, there was no reason to think you were joking.  I am
glad you were; you are not completely beholden to some of the worse libertarian arguments.

“To throw out personal liberty, so that police have another lever to try and catch criminals, is to throw the baby ("freedom") out with the bathwater.”

The personal liberty to ruin one’s own life with poison?  Why, McBrown, is suicide a criminal
offense?  I believe it has been since the Founders’ time.

“Why don’t we throw out the Second while we’re at it, to make sure the “citizens” can’t fight back.”

Is that an argument, or when someone replies to you, McBrown, will you condescendingly say
it was a joke? 

“Since I’m not a Libertarian, I wouldn’t know.”

Then I never called you an idiot, then.  Good.

“Sodomy wasn’t in the Constitution.”

Here, McBrown, I do hope you’re joking.  The point of bringing up anti-sodomy laws is that
they prove that the Founders had no problem with laws against crimes that moderns might
regard as “victimless.”

@ Caper, Suicide isn’t a criminal offense.  It’s a sin.

You can call the relationship of the police and criminals a “war” if you like.  I tend to think of wars as one country vcersus another, as opposed to the government against its citizens.  Perhaps therein lies our diffreence of opinion.

I disgree with your assertion about fighting the “War on Drugs”.  You assert that, absent the “war”, there would be chaos.  The “War” has caused the slaughther of thousands of innocent people, both in the US and aborad.  Not to mention the corruption of governments, to the detriment of US citizens.  Compare Chicago before and after Prohibtion.  Capone and his cronies corrupted one of the largest US cities.  After Prohibition, organized crime in that city (and elsewhere) decreased--because without the money stream, the criminals couldn’t buy their way out of justice.

My point is that, if you want to control “true crime”, that is where innocent people are injured, through no fault of their own, the “War on Drugs” is a very poor (and expensive) way to do it.

Finally, yes I think people have the right to ruin themselves with poison.  It may be wrong.  It may be a sin.  But it’s not a crime, unless the user harms someone else.  Then hang them in the village square.

But, McBrown, suicide is a criminal offense in addition to being a sin.  It is on the books.
If you try to shoot yourself, the police intervene.

Secondly, I am all in favor of the police being at war with citizens, provided they be
citizens *who are lawbreakers.* You wield the word “citizen” as though that alone were
sufficient to exonerate one from the obligation of paying the penalty for breaking the law.
Apparently you are not familiar with the metaphorical, extended use of the word “war”?  Or
are you making one of those tedious “jokes” of which you are fond?

“The personal liberty to ruin one’s own life with poison?  Why, McBrown, is suicide a criminal
offense?  I believe it has been since the Founders’ time.”

So, Casper, are you in favor of criminalizing the consumption of tobacco and alcohol? How about eating fatty foods? How about drinking less than 10 glasses of water a day?

@ Caper, Here we go again.  You can’t help but personlize things, huh?  Fine. 

My jokes are “tedious” only because you lack the wit to have a sense of humor.  Maybe I should try “half a joke”.  If you don’t get that one, it implies that you’re a “halfwit”.

Attempted suicide is a crime.  Suicide, while formerly “on the books”, has never been enforced, for obvious reasons.  I don’t think it is “on the books” anywhere now.  Frankly, I don’t care, since it’s not germane to the issues I raised.

Your arguments make no sense.  The issue is whether drug laws are warranted.  Not whether police enforce them.  Stick to the point, my friend.

You haven’t answered a single one of my inquiries.  Would you elimate the Second, Fourth and Fifth amendments?  They interfere with your theory of a police state.  To expound, even if I’m not viloating the law, I have the right to be safe in my own home.  The cops have to get a warrant to come in.  You seem to say, “Well, if you’re not violating the law, what do you care?” I care because, while I have faith in the police, my faith is not absolute.

Will you admit that the War on Drugs has been very expensive?  That the availability of drugs hasn’t changed since it’s inception?  That the price has gone down?

If you won’t admit those manifest facts, then there is nothing to discuss, since you are either ignorant, uneducated or ill-read.

If you do admit them (since they’re all true) then you must admit that the War on Drugs has been, and will be a failure--unless its real goal has been to lessen the rights of US citizens.

For the government to adopt laws, soley to allow it to get around Constituional protections, is wrong.

We have the perfect test case: Prohibition. 

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

As long as government appears to have responsibility for our lives, then it would not be prudent in legalizing drugs. It would be giving society’s sanction and imprimatur for using drugs. If however, we reverted back to understandings of previous eras that the individual was responsible for himself in all things, then legalization would seem permissible for adults. If you screw up your life, its on you. No financial or medical assistance from taxpayers via government to junkies.

By the way, suicide (and attempted suicide) is not against the law in the US.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040326.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_views_of_suicide

@ Rich J., I’d tax the hell of of it, and use the revenue for rehab centers.  Again, however, if a third party is harmed, hang the user in the village square.

“You haven’t answered a single one of my inquiries.  Would you elimate the Second, Fourth
and Fifth amendments?  They interfere with your theory of a police state.  To expound, even
if I’m not viloating the law, I have the right to be safe in my own home.  The cops have to
get a warrant to come in.  You seem to say, “Well, if you’re not violating the law, what do
you care?” I care because, while I have faith in the police, my faith is not absolute.”

What, precisely, is my “theory of a police state”?  All I said is that the police state
canard is precisely that, a canard, when used against anti-drug legislation.  I do not see
how that has much to do with the 2nd, 4th, or 5th amendments, none of which forbids
the prohibition of drugs.

Or are you saying that
cops shouldn’t frisk people for drugs in the instances I mentioned?  I say, it depends on whether it
helps prevent major crimes.  I prefer the spirit of the law to the letter.  Because my
faith in the letter of the Constitution isn’t absolute.  I prefer substantive justice to
procedural justice, even if sometimes it means intimidating people to get them to turn
state’s evidence.  I’m not talking about the Gestapo here, just what they do on Law and Order.
If you think that the legal system as depicted on Law and Order is innately Naziish, then
we disagree, and that’s all the more there is to it. 

“Will you admit that the War on Drugs has been very expensive?  That the availability of
drugs hasn’t changed since it’s inception?  That the price has gone down?  If you won’t
admit those manifest facts, then there is nothing to discuss, since you are either ignorant,
uneducated or ill-read.  If you do admit them (since they’re all true) then you must admit
that the War on Drugs has been, and will be a failure--unless its real goal has been to
lessen the rights of US citizens.”

This argument doesn’t work.  Of course the war on drugs has been expensive.  Many things
are that are still worth it.  Next, about the availability of drugs.  For the sake of the
argument, I’ll concede it.  But, of course, drugs would be even more available if the govt.
did not ban them.  I am in favor of banning drugs, so I favor weak enforcement, to total
non-enforcement.  Thirdly, I’ll concede for the sake of the argument that prices have gone
down.  Again, see above—prices would be even lower if they were legal.  I claim that
the govt. has a right to ban certain self-destructive behaviors.  Nothing in the Constitution
says otherwise, as the Founding Fathers were fine with legal prohibition on sodomy and
suicide.  Next, as Mr. Roach eloquently argues, anti-drug legislation leads to the arrest
of many criminals who otherwise might be out on the street.  As I add, it leads to the
successful prosecution of many criminals who otherwise might be out on the street.  So 1)
something that may constitutionally be banned 2) is banned 3) with results that benefit
society via the locking up of more serious offenders.  That sort of effort may be worth
both 1) expense and 2) perseverance in the face of more advanced criminal drug circulation
efforts. 

And I’m sorry for criticizing your humor.  I was pissed off because you expected me to know
that you were joking about waterboarding when many people use that sort of argument in all
seriousness.

Fine, suicide is no longer a crime.  It was, however, in the Founders’ days, so obviously
one cannot claim that the Founders would object in principle to laws against harming oneself. 
The Common Law provided for precisely that, in the case of suicide.  If the Founders
accepted laws against poisoning onself, the prohibition of self-harming drugs cannot
be objected to on the basis that that *the Founders* objected to it on the basis that
it harms no one else.

Also, if you try to kill yourself, the cops will intervene to save you from death, which
is just as good as having a law against suicide.  There is no punishment for the person
who attempts suicide, but the cop is obliged to thwart the act.

For all the times that 19th century drug abuse has been mentioned in this thread, I would think that someone would have already pointed out the difference between patterns of drug use today and then.

Morphine abuse was widespread across all classes of society in the 19th century.  While illegal drugs may still be widely available today, their use, particularly if marijuana is left aside, is now much more concentrated among the poor and uneducated, i.e. the people who are statistically most inclined to criminality.

I think it would be hard to argue that drug laws aren’t at least part of the reason for this change.

@ Caper, You wrote, “Or are you saying that
cops shouldn’t frisk people for drugs in the instances I mentioned?  I say, it depends on whether it
helps prevent major crimes.  I prefer the spirit of the law to the letter.  Because my
faith in the letter of the Constitution isn’t absolute.  I prefer substantive justice to
procedural justice, even if sometimes it means intimidating people to get them to turn
state’s evidence.  I’m not talking about the Gestapo here, just what they do on Law and Order.”

I trust in the Constitution, and its protection, more than in the wisdom of the police, or you, to decide whether a “major crime” may be comiitted by someone a drug user maybe knew.  That is the Gestapo.

QED

Mr. Roach,

Consider the implicit assumption of the prohibition argument:  Bloods, Crips, and other gangs would just suddenly quit being scumbags if drug dealing were legalized.  These drug dealers are not going to get jobs where they have to show respect for their boss, show up on time, and cut off their “corn rows” if drugs were legalized tomorrow, just as the mafia did not disappear in the 1950s,instead switching its focus to such varied rackets as extortion, the garment industry, prostitution, and gambling.  I’d frankly rather have the natural scumbags directed towards drug dealing--which is easy to find and prove--than have them move to commercial kidnapping, child prostitution, or something worse.

The mafia got its legs during the prohibition. Similarly, the gangs, particularly the hispanic gangs, are gaining their power now, with the drug trade. Yes, if the drug trade legalizes, they will move on to other crimes, but they will most likely stop growing, because their cash cow will be gone. The longer we wait until we either legalize drugs or completely break the drug trade (by say, executing any one possessing drugs like they do in Asian countries), the stronger organized crime gets.

Organized crime has a corrosive effect on society. It deteriotes the ability of the justice system to keep order. It increases tyranny, and destabilizes the economy.

Mr. Roach; would you have the esteemed owner of our site, who served a short term in a British prison for smuggling drugs, locked up for years. I would not,most drug offences deserve fines or short terms at most.

I would not have him serve a long time, but the drug laws sensibly distinguish users and dealers.  That said, while I am honored to be a part of this site, I don’t think the best way to make laws is to ask how you would feel if someone you know and like is sentenced a long time.  I wouldn’t like it if a friend or family member went away a long time for DUI, but obviously those laws are sensible and the punishments should be suitably harsh.

Police setting up road blocks to do “safety checks,” but all the drug sniffing dogs just happen to be there.

As to sodomy vs. drugs.

There is no Constitutional authority delegated to the Central government over those issues!

The drug “war” has done more harm than terrorism in advancing Federal usurpations.

Quote from Roach: “They contrast this picture with the recent past, a time without SWAT teams and drug-sniffing dogs.

No, Drug War opponents contrast our current state that with of current crimes rate in other countries with no “War on Drugs” or where medical treatment based policies are primary rather than criminal enforcement.

Quote: “Consider Radley Balko, an archetypal libertarian and sometime staffer at the storied Cato Institute.  In a recent entry, he decries police “militarization” as represented by the provision of scary uniforms to a police anti-gang unit...Obviously, most people do not want to be mistreated by police.  But most people are law abiding, and they do want criminals to be scared of police”

So law enforcement wearing masks and black uniforms have been historically linked to having more freedom in society?

We want our police to be threaten to everyone by having more military style gear in use when the police are civilian? Militarization should make us feel more free.

Do you folks see Roach’s double think?

Quote: “Popular attitudes about crime and law enforcement recognize that criminals are atypical...”

Fallacy ad populum. Popular attitudes are forms mostly by propaganda and are not fact based thus useless in forming good policy.

Quote”...most people recognize that drug dealers are law-breakers that are often vicious and violent.”

Fallacy ad populum again and false. Most drug users and dealers are white suburbans according to the National Institutes on Drug Abuse, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Quote: “The fundamental error of libertarianism is a monomaniacal focus on the state.”

No the fundamental error of libertarianism is its enlightenment conception of the autonomous individual and utilitarian ethics which you use later in your article.

Quote: The barricaded urban apartments during the 1970s were just as much a signal of restrained freedom...”

And those conditions where caused by Government policy and suggest you talk to Frank Morales about this issue and get educated about the 70s urban housing crisis ...if you want to talk about non-government factors limiting freedom talk about corporate PCism.

Quote: “Their violation of the drug laws is not so much an expression of their natural rights as it is the manifestation of their naturally anti-social characteristic”

Guess you would apply that standard to RAW milk producers as well who also get the SWAT treatment. People sell drugs for the money and Drug War increases the profit motive
and thus the"balloon effect” which has increased drug use has increased in all categories since prohibition (http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/new.html)

Quote “Popular movements to increase penalties for drug dealers and to expand the capabilities of police are sensible and healthy.”

There are no “popular movements” to increase drug penalties. BigPharma and Tabacco, and Alcohol are behind the Partnership For a Drug-Free America. Wackenhut is also behind efforts to increase penalties. The dealers of legal drug kill many more people than those of illegal drugs but why no movements to police those drugs?
No these movements are unhealthly and driving by corrupt corporations and promote racial stereotypes to further help balkanization which then helps to promote identity politics which in turn creates ethic-identity markets which drives late capitalism desperate to create new markets even in tearing down nations using the prison industrial complex as slave labor, gangsta rap,white fear culture, etc. ..etc… Creating new markets based on fear. Roach seems to think that this is healthy. I don’t. Roach is preaching fear is health.

Quote: “Before the drug war and the increase in paramilitary SWAT and anti-gang units, police shootings were higher in absolute terms than the present.”

Who says that other than Klinger who works for Homeland Security?

Quote: “Instead of quixotically fighting root causes, it’s easier to lock up criminals when they identify themselves by committing a crime, any crime.”

dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter

A Low Crime Society isn’t necessarily a free or just society and your arguments are no different than the one’s Lewitt made concerning abortion and are the basis of every eugenics policy of the past. Arresting people for non-crime (responsible recreational drug use and the selling of such drugs and no I don’t use and never have) is immoral and the ends do not justify the means especially when it entails the systemic violation of human dignity which imprisonment does. Roach’s arguments are evil.

Mr. Roach’s argument assumes the necessity and the propriety of our socialist style criminal justice system, existing public school administration and of our multi-cultural/anti-discrimination establishment.  On the other hand, a libertarian society would be based upon competing PRIVATE neighborhoods, with private roads, private schools and no universal laws against private discrimination.  Imagine homebuilders advertising their wares by guaranteeing neighborhoods with no dopers, no drinkers and no other immoral types (however that might be defined for the intended market and the mores of the time).  Anyone desiring to live (or even visit) the neighborhood could/would be thoroughly vetted for impure thoughts, bad character, bad personal history or bad genes (depending upon what is conceived as proper at the time).  The neighborhood school (in whatever form) would be private and similarly able to completely screen its students.  A safe neighborhood is merely a good or service that can be sold on the market.  It ain’t brain surgery.

Those choosing to reside in a more relaxed setting would still need to contract with private insurers, including medical insurers, who could insist upon drug tests (among other things) and who could charge variable rates depending on the risk.  Owners of private roads would probably not tolerate drunks or dopers.  There would be no mean streets, only clean streets.

As long as we are not going to change the status quo, Mr. Roach’s program could be extrapolated.  Each citizen can be assigned his or her very own personal SS officer who could constantly monitor all actions, associations, communications and medications.  This too would go a long way towards “gathering up society’s trash.”

The war on drugs and most of the complaints of Radley involve local law enforcement.  There is a reasonably sound argument one could make about federal involvement, though certainly they could be invovled in policing the border and disallowing importation under the Constitution.  But the Constitution enumerates federal powers; states, by contrast, have full sovereignty and an inherent police power to make laws impliciating the “health, safety, welfare, and morals of the people.”

Salus populi suprema est lex.

This is not a libertarian website.  It’s a conservative website. Jaime et al. should at least base your arguments on some common ground, because the libertarian pontification based on dubious “first principles” is quite unpersuasive (and boring).

“Popular attitudes about crime and law enforcement recognize that criminals are atypical...”

What was that statistic on how many adults have used illegal substances at some point in their lives?  Something like 70%?  One of the problems with the drug war is that it focuses on typical Americans.

But because law-and-order conservatives are only focused on making sure their preconceived notions of who “the bad guys” are get theirs, none of that matters.  Rule of law doesn’t mean twisting the laws to make everybody criminal.  Conservatives used to understand that some of the law in “law and order” is BAD LAW.  Sheesh.

@ Roach, Oh so now it’s a “conservative” website.  And you get to define “conservative.” Neat.  Why don’t you set up “roachmag.com” and see how many hits you get?  The vast majority of the responders to your column disagreed with you.  Sorry about that.  Maybe you’re the one in the wrong place.

Your attempts to claim it’s a states’ rights issue is a step in the direction of sanity.  However, the “War on Drugs” is a federal program.

Your repeated references to towel heads and “corn rows, gold teeth and 25” rims” seem to run afoul of the site’s rules re: “ethnic slurs”, but maybe that’s just me.

Iuventus stultorum magister.

Quote:"This is not a libertarian website.  It’s a conservative website.”

Centralizing police power in the Federal Government over personal drug use violates the conservative principle of subsidiarity which means problems like
drug use are best handled closest to home not in dictates from Washington.

The War on Drug the is one of the greatest kinds of unnecessary government intervention and waste of resources ever undertaken by any government
and if decentralizing power, curbing corruption, ending government useless interference in natural markets in mostly natural substances, and returning the care and treatment of drug abusers back to friends, family , and church isn’t part of conservative values then I don’t know what conservative values are and I don’t want to because they clearly can’t be very good.

If you believe that “War on Drugs” doesn’t involve massive federal interference with local law enforcement, Federal Drug laws and Federal Prisons then you shouldn’t discuss the issue because you degrade the quality of this website.

I’d like to see Roach debate William Grigg on this issue.

P.S. I’m not a libertarian as anyone who seen my comments on this site will know and I oppose the the “War on Plant products banned because they cut into profits of Big Business and offend racist snobs” soley because I am a true-conservative and has the common sense to know that the “War on Plant Products” has no advantages isn’t conservative or christian in any way and is just pure assininity.

Societies need order and restraint.  I’m an Aristotelian and do not believe in liberalism, classical or otherwise. I’m for government restraining liberty for its own preservation and the broader preservation of the society, as well as to make it easier for people to lead virtuous lives.  Drug laws do these things. Laws against gay marriage, usury, and sodomy do too.

I concede the federalism point; but a great deal of anti-drug laws, arrests, and the like are by states.  There’s no reason these would disappear if the DEA’s role was rolled into that of Customs. And since libertarians rag on state “police power” laws, I think their federalism arguments are simply tactical.  Federalism used to mean very limited government at the federal level and something approaching classical republicansim at the local level.  This aspect is lost on the Procrustean reasoning of libertarians today.

Finally, I’m all for mocking low class black crack dealers, redneck meth dealers, Hispanic gang-bangin’ heroin dealers, and the rest of the lower criminal classes, whose long-term incarceration on drug charges is making us all safer.  These are not ethnic slurs, so much as mockery of the low classes and their peculiar tastes, i.e., corn rows, rims, etc. We should not induldge these people when they get out of control whether with the law or in fashion.  We can engage in classism and general mockery of society’s trash here, can’t we?

@ Roach, You can do what you want.  I think quotes like yours, “These are not ethnic slurs, so much as mockery of the low classes and their peculiar tastes, i.e., corn rows, rims, etc.” are wrong.  You’re insulting a group of people without regarding to them, as individauls.  Not everyone with corn rows is a drug dealer.  Not everyone with a buzz cut is a Marine.  If someone dresses differently than you, it’s ok to call them “society’s trash”?  Again, I’ve never thought that’s what this site is about, but those type of prejudgments based on race, appearance etc are anything but “conservative”.

You wrote, “ I’m for government restraining liberty for its own preservation.” That’s as good a definition fo classic lberalism as I’ve ever seen.

I thought the idea was for a government “Of the people, By the People and For the People”.

Not for ITSELF.

It is conservative to arrest vehicles, confiscate currency, declare probable cause when the subject refuses to a search “request?”

The only reason I am calling myself libertarian these days is because conservatism has lost any meaning.

This op-ed sadly proves the point.

BTW, a lot of what the States do, including this drug “war” stuff, is due to Federal blackmail.

Conservatives believe in prejudice. 

Richard Weaver wrote a good essay on this called Life Without Prejudice.

Burke wrote something along these lines too:

“YOU see, Sir, that in this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess that we are generally men of untaught feelings, that, instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree, and, to take more shame to ourselves, we cherish them because they are prejudices; and the longer they have lasted and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them.”

You libertarians do not realize that you are not consevative, the past was often an illiberal place, that America has had other historical virtues besides liberty (like good sense, prejudice, religious sentiment, self-control, moderate habits), and that experience and circumstances coupled with some hazy notion of justice and human flourishing, not deductive reasoning about a single social value, is the only way to arrive at sound political thinking.

Conservatism is, above all else, an attitude about change.  And the deductive, Jacobin-sounding reasoning of libertarians makes no bones about change in order to conform societies to the abstract formulae of Paine, Jefferson, and Locke.

It’s noteworthy that no human society has chosen or long sustained the ridiculous vision of the libertarians.  Societies need order.  And our duller cousins in the underclass need it more than we.

“Societies need order.  And our duller cousins in the underclass need it more than we.” And you’re the one it give it to them?

That’s what it’a all about for you?  Governing the “lower classes"--or anyone who disagrees with the government elites.  Look in the mirror.  You are a LIBERAL. 

Keeping everything static isn’t conservative.  It’s totalitarian.

It’s not a “war on drugs” you want, that’s just a Trojan horse for bigger and more intrusive government imposing its will on the People. 

I am done with this exchange.  As I wrote at the outset, I think you’d be happier in Singapore.

First, I don’t think you know what “liberal” means if you think legislation geared toward social order equates with liberalism.  Second, no, Mr. Roach is not the one who would “give them” order.  Order would be sought through the action of a political majority, as expressed through its elected representatives.  This is the foundation of the American political system.  So it seems to me as if it is you who does not belong in this coutnry, not Mr. Roach, as it is you who apparently object to the bedrock foundations of political society in the United States.

@ Roach, FYI, I am not a libertarian.

Finally, If you actually knew Burke, or his writngs, you’d know that his “prejudice” was NOT racial prejudice--which you extol.  It was a decision making tool- i.e. not reinventing the wheel every time something needed to be moved--what has worked before, will work again and there is no reason to revisist it.

You should stick to things you know.

Over and out

@ Coriell, I equate “liberal” with big government.  What Roach appears to expound is actully totalitarianism, i.e. the government of the masses by an elite.

Majority rule is not the bedrock of America.  That’s tyranny.  It is the rights granted to each Ameircan citizen.  Go read the Constitution.

If you read above, you note I cited to various Amendments to the Constituion 4th and 5th, not least, which Mr. Roach would apparently do without, so that the “lower classes” could be more easily governed.

Anyway, I’ve spent enough time on this drviel

The foundations of American political society are a little more complicated that that, mcbrown.  As an initial matter, you will recall that there were state governments that existed before the ratification of the Constitution, so to pretend that the American concept of government appeared, tabula rasa, in 1787 or 1788-89 is quite a distortion of the historical record.

In any case, a cursory review of The Federalist, a biography of Madison or one of the other Founders who particiated in the Philadelphia Convention, or a history of the ratification struggles in the states would acquaint you with Madison’s compact theory as the guiding principle behind American constitutionalism.  The compact theory is premised on the notion that constitutional conventions ratifying a written constitution and erecting a form of government, as occurred in all 13 United States between 1788 and 1791, served as “acts of unanimity” by which the people of the United States consented to create a national (or federal, if you prefer) political society.  After this “act of unanimity,” it is in fact “majority rule” (although not a crude majority rule in the form of the strawman that you seem to have set up) that is the engine of political society.  Since there will never be unanimous consent from all Americans as to any act, we act as majorities through our elected representatives, limited as you quite rightly point out by Constitutional prohibitions and, in the case of the federal government, by enumerated powers.

Of course, state governments are not limited constitutionally by enumerated powers and instead are permitted to legislate for the general welfare and to act pursuant to a general police power, again as limited by certain specific prohibitions in both state and the federal constitutions.  So here is the nub of the issue—within the state legislature’s constitutional power to legislate for the general welfare, how exactly to you propose to resolve policy differences as to what constitutes the general welfare and what does not?  Let’s say Mr. Roach supports some harsh state drug laws and you do not.  Aside from ranting and raving about tyranny and Singapore, which is presumably your answer to any policy proposition with which you disagree, how exactly are we as a political society supposed to mediate between these positions, and similar ones on millions of other issues that come before legislatures?

The answer is that we debate them within our republican institutions—the legislature in this case—and they are resolved through the will of the majority acting through its elected representatives.  Every single one of us will disagree with the way in which several issues are resolved and with the resulting laws in those instances over time, and we may fight to change them.  But to cry “tyranny” because elected representatives have enacted certain laws on the state level, pursuant to their universally-accepted power to legislate for the general welfare, is not only counter-productive but anti-American.  This is the way the system works and was intended to work from the beginning.  This is the theory of the American republic.  If you don’t like it, of course, I Assume the right to revolution is always open for you.

And by the way, I like Mr. Roach concede the federalism point and that much of what the federal government does with respect to drug laws is unconstitutional.  The discussion above applies to the states alone.

@ Mr. Coriell, I agree.  That was very cogent, and accurate. 

This overly long string began with Mr. Roach’s proposition that the “War on Drugs” was beneficial.  My point was that coming up with laws, soley to increase the police’ ability to arrest people, (as Mr. Roach posited was good) was not so good.  I mentioned it would be simpler to do away with the 4th and 5th Amendments--which was what he was, effectively, advocating--with some invective about “corn rows” et. al., thrown in. 

Ultimately, Mr. Roach came around and agreed that the War on Drugs was not good, at least from a Federal standpoint.  As I noted above, from a “states rights” perspective, the considerations are markedly different.  Although, even so, I think the 14th amendment would limit what the states could do----Perhaps that’s where the problem lies.
However, keep in mind that

McBrown, to be clear, I don’t go looking for dragons to slay and I think on balance the end result of the drug war and its long mandatory minimums is socially a good one under the circumstances today. 

I concede much federal legislation, including drug legislation, is probably unconstitutional and this concerns me greatly.  I’d undo the whole package.  But if it’s here to stay, I at least want some good to come of it.  I don’t concede laws regarding drug imports would be unconstitutional.  I certainly don’t concede state laws are unconstitutional.  Finally, the drug war does something useful:  it keeps dangerous people behind bars.  This is a valuable thing too, and a legalistic regard for constitutionalism certainly doesn’t seem to animate libertarians with regard to Title VII, food stamps, or anti-discrimination laws, which I never see them write about, so I don’t see why I should get exercised about constitutionalism in this case.  I’d get rid of all this stuff if I could, but I’d let states keep the drug dealers behind bars, and I’d let the feds assist them insofar as interstate or international transporation were involved in a manner similar to the Mann Act.

As it stands, if we’re going to be taxed like hell, and our freedom of contract violated for racial social engineering reasons, then I’d just as soon have dangerous, low IQ young minority men locked up on pretextual charges so that we don’t have to worry about them carjacking us or raping our daughters.

When CATO and its staff marches against Title VII and protests school bussing ordered by federal judges, I’ll commend them for their principled stands.  Until then, I think they’re just hippies that don’t want to pay a lot for poor people to live idle lives.

Mr.Roach: in regards to DUI and other drug related driving offenses. We have a tragic case in my neighborhood where an alcholic and drug addicted former doctor just killed 3 people under the influnce. He will be sent to prison for a long time.

That is how it should be, but the vast majority of drunk drivers hurt no one ever. When I was young everyone drove drunk once in a while. Today the laws are much stricter but jail should only be reserved for bad repeat offenders who are a real menace. The states again should regulate these offenses as to blood alchol levels. Keep the federal govenment out of it with all their mandates.

I don’t mean to speak for Mr. Roach, but I believe that his support for certain types of “morals legislation” is based not on the notion that we can make people behave properly (or more cynically, the way that the majority arbitrarily wants them to behave), or on the notion that we should pass laws that make it easier to arrest people who look or act in ways that we don’t like but can’t directly legislate again.  I think instead that the idea is to pass certain laws that will tend to limit the effects of generally anti-social behavior that is destructive of republican virtue.  So drug laws are not wholly or even primarily about getting rid of drugs or targeting a particular class of people for arrest; they are about signaling society’s disapproval for a particular social type (the modern drug dealer and drug-obsessed gang member) and hopefully limiting the deleterious effects of that type on society as a whole.

Now many libertarians will respond (and have responded above) with the notion that absent the unjust drug laws, these anti-social types that we are talking about would likely not exist in their socially harmful forms.  This is where Mr. Roach and I disagree, because as he has stated above, drugs do not cause them to be who they are, but rather who they are causes them to get into drugs, and will thus cause them to get into other violent and socially harmful activities. 

So I think that Mr. Roach’s point about the laws being a vehicle to arrest “bad” types was an attempt to move the focus off of the mechanics—drug laws and whether drugs are bad—and on to the real social purpose of this and other types of “morals legislation”—that being a condemnation and confinement of anti-social types by the political society as a whole.

About the prohibition issue:  If drug use and sales were legal the drug dealers would lose their income. The chain of production and distribution they have built, over decades, would collapse. Their business would disappear. Nothing says they could keep their current customers by offering them gambling or prostitutes instead. So, they would try their hand at other crimes, but they would initially not be very good at it, and would not make the easy money as they are used to. Reduced to doing the petty crime their addicts did earlier, they would lose status and not be seen as role models by anyone.

I do not imagine this would make neighbourhoods safe or make violent criminals change their ways, but it would take most of the money out of the criminals hands. The drug addicts would not have to get involved in crime, and might find it easier to fight the serious medical problem they have.

Drug use would have to be fought as the huge medical problem it is, which probably would cost less, and yield more, than the war on(some)drugs currently does.

I look forward to Mr. Roach’s defense of the Global War on Terrror for the same consequentialist arguments he purveys here. Actually I believe he has acknowledged supporting the war in the past so it shouldn’t be too much of a stretch. I can’t recall Aristotle having much to say about Freakonomic control of misfit masses.

Quote from Roach: “I’m for government restraining liberty for its own preservation and the broader preservation of the society, as well as to make it easier for people to lead virtuous lives.”

A government that restrains liberty in order to pursue its own power preserves neither the society nor the virtue of it people rather it destroys it.

Laws which destroy personal responsible and interfere with the central authority of the family to insure the health and safety of the individual are an attack on virtue and it is the duty of every conservative to attack those laws as unnatural usurpations of the natural order. And in your defending of the government as primary to the perservation of society rather than the family you have indenfied yourself as a collectivist as dangerous to the health this society as is an any communist or neo-nazi. Personally, the brown Prozium that Taki banned from this site is starting real reasonsible compared to Roach.

Quote from Roach: “, I’m all for mocking low class black crack dealers, redneck meth dealers, Hispanic gang-bangin’ heroin dealers, and the rest of the lower criminal classes, whose long-term incarceration on drug charges is making us all safer.”

What you are talking about creating social stigma against bad behavior which would be fine (as long as it wasn’t something government was doing for reasons I’ll explain later) but in this case it doesn’t work because the extreme and absurd nature of the drugs war is making these lower classes seem glamorous and heroic. As a result we have gangsta rap and drug culture like no other country and near worship of crack dealing black men. Whereas in the Netherlands to quote one of their drug officials “we have succeeding in making pot boring.” In the Netherlands folks on crack or meth are seen as pathetic mentally ill people and in American crack and meth is cool and it is the Drug War that solely responsible.

But there is another problem. What substances are associated with low class behavior is arbituary unless the government bans them and forces their association into the hands of certain members of society. Alcohol during prohibition was made low and to this day the mafia are still glamorised and romanticised. There is nothing inheirently low class about cocaine or any of these substances. It used to be a commonly availible commercial substance and we were much more virtuous society at the time. The War on Drugs takes power away from the family, churchs,natural markets, higher classes to define behavior and hands that power directly to the lower/criminal classes. And when you try to have the government try to take this power back from the criminal classes you empower the government as sole determiner of morals and good order and destroy the whole natural balance of the social order which you where trying to preserve. This is what happened in the communist countries and they still have not recovered from the damage. American doesn’t need a communist drug policy.

@ Roach, You write, “I think on balance the end result of the drug war and its long mandatory minimums is socially a good one under the circumstances today.”

The “War on Drugs” has been a abject failure--by ANY measurement.  The availablity of drugs hasn’t been effected.  The price of drugs has declined.  Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent.  The prisons are overflowing with drug users--not dealers.  Innocent bystanders are the victims of gun battles between drug lords fighting to control their turf (i.e. profit centers).  Third world governments have been corrupted.  South America has been destabilized.

The “War” is lost.

Unless it’s the “War on People with ‘Corn Rows, gold teeth and 25” rims’--as you previously wrote, and which is what you truly desire.  Why not come out and say that, at least people might respect your honesty.

It would be a lot cheaper to simply repeal the Civil Rights Act if the object is to keep law-abiding citizens safe from the criminally inlined poor minorities.

Just under the surface, just past the words and just out of sight are to be found the true currents of thought.

Roach, you can’t get past the rights argument.  You may call it boring, but that’s worse than missing the point; it’s deflecting it.  Further, bitching about metaphysics is for Pragmatists.  Is that what the conservative mind has descended to; John Dewey?  At this rate, I expect to see several essays on this and other leading conservative pages extolling the virtues of hermeneutical philosophy by year’s end.