The Drug War is Working!

[mRx 16]

The Praxeology* of the Drug War: Who Knew?

(*Logical, Economically-Valid Justification)

By Wilt Alston

"DEA agents chasing the supply found themselves at factories in China and India, pondering a new reality. The game was no longer about cocaine. The organizations were breeding something more lasting: entrepreneurs."

~ Ben Wallace-Wells, Mother Jones Magazine

For about the tenth time, I admit it. I'm a slow learner. I've lamented the drug war lots of times, in lots of places, covering many of the same points. Even in the wake of a recent blog post wherein I noted that education and health care are functioning properly from a statist perspective, I still didn't realize the truth of the "War on (Some) Drugs" until now.

No, it was only after reading a fascinating article in Mother Jones, from which the quote above is taken, and particularly after deeply drinking of one of the thoughtful comments to that article, that it finally dawned on me: The drug war is working. The comment about which I speak, which I will examine below, was submitted by someone who refers to himself as "Just a guy." He was responding to another poster who referred to himself as "Johnny Hempseed" whose comments I will also include.

Ironically, Hempseed posited many of the same arguments that I (and others) have vociferously made. They include: that history shows that drug use does not lead to a breakdown of society; that recent evidence in places like Portugal illustrates that legalization does not lead to a dramatic rise in users; that prohibition generates much if not all of the violence so attendant with the drug war. Yada. Yada. Yada.

The initial respondent, "Johnny Hempseed," stated:

There were no thugs, gangs, hoodlums, or guns involved with any drugs before the early 1900's. They were sold peacefully in apothecaries in cities and off of the back of wagons in rural areas. True, some users of opiates struggled with addiction, but the rate of addiction was virtually the same as it is today. Many church missions offered help to the homeless and drug and alcohol addicted.

He continued:

Until the early 1900's there was virtually no stigma on cocaine or cannabis use whatsoever. These two medicines were routinely used on infants for things like teething pains or colic or restlessness. Sigmund Freud injected cocaine with a syringe every morning. Babe Ruth and Sandy Koufax were regular cocaine users, as were most professional baseball athletes.

He repeated something I’ve said a thousand times:

To end the War on Some Drugs we have to realize that the best way to attack every violent drug dealer in the country and simultaneously put them all out of business is to sell cannabis, cocaine, and yes, even heroin, legally in regulated outlets.

He ended with:

Almost every time you hear of a violent killing in the USA it's because of unresolved commercial drug disputes. A person who can't call the police is an excellent target for robbery. And these robbers then become targeted for violence, because you can't sue them or have them prosecuted.

That’s great stuff. Heck, he could have written my previous essays and saved me some work! He even used the terminology "war on SOME drugs" which is a personal favorite of mine. For the record, I agree with him in large part. However, "Just a guy" posted something that finally gave me pause. To wit:

That was a very well thought out reply and is the same conclusion that a large portion of our population has reached. Unfortunately however, it's not about the "War on Drugs" or saving kids or anything else. It's about profit. Money. The drug war is probably our country's largest economy. Politicians, judges, lawyers, police officers, deputy sheriffs, jailers, prison guards, social workers, probation and parole officers, a third of the military, Customs, FBI, DEA, IRS, U.S. Marshals. The drug war makes these people’s house and car payments at least in part. The drug war is about continuing to expend resources on an issue that will not go away. They'll never legalize it. There's too much money to be made fighting it and too many jobs at stake to make it legal. But it is what they should do, they just won't.

I wish I could say that no one has made these points to me before, but I can't. (To those respondents who sent me e-mails with similar points, I apologize for being dense.) For some reason, "Just a guy" caught me at a point when the knowledge could seep in. The War on (Some) Drugs is functioning exactly as one should expect, even right down to the racial disparities in enforcement.

It is certainly an unfortunate fact that there are still people who don't accept the historically-relevant and anti-prohibition, liberty-based arguments. (That so many continue to pettifog about the experience of decriminalization in Portugal simply illustrates the inherent weakness of the argument from effect.) It is equally unfortunate, if somewhat oddly reassuring, that these people's existence has little to do with the fact that the war on drugs likely won't end anytime soon, no matter the rhetoric of change we hear or might be convinced to believe in.

While I am convinced (by Hoppe, among others) that the power of the State rests largely on the approval of the masses, history illustrates that a tiny minority with sufficient economic undergirding, implied social authorization, and monopoly of force can exist and flourish despite the fact that the majority seemingly disagrees with them in principal. (Aside: South Africa experienced apartheid for decades while blacks outnumbered whites at least 10-to-1. Similarly, in the U.S. which has a population of over 300 million people, only about 2 million people work for the federal government, excluding the Postal Service. Having "them" outnumbered isn’t sufficient to generate change.)

As one should expect from almost any action of the coercive state, the war on drugs has created a teeming caldron of self-interested drug-warrior-bureaucrats, people who benefit both from fighting the war, and just as important, seeing that it does not end. For these people the war on drugs is not only a calling, but an income stream. Worse yet, the drug war has spawned a network of supposedly private enterprises beholden to it. This is an ecosystem – large, well-funded, politically-entrenched – that exists directly as a result of the war on drugs. There is little chance that these people will simply return to normal life or that they would ever wish to do so.

The violence, the power, the control, the money attendant with administering the war on drugs attracted them. The on-going battle keeps them busy and very gainfully employed. From the standpoint of the prison-industrial complex, the drug war has created a virtual cottage industry, and it’s a really big cottage, complete with a whole new generation of slaves to work the plantation. The popular narrative – that without valiant drug warriors standing in the gap, drug abuse and crack whores would overwhelm the sacred American family and our way of life – is bogus and has always been so. The lessons of alcohol prohibition in the U.S. and drug decriminalization around the world bear this out. However, the popular narrative does somehow manage to keep many of the people the drug warriors claim to protect confused enough to not see the truth, even if that mattered.

Conclusion

So what is the real message of this essay? And what does praxeology or Austrian economics have to do with it? All too often liberals, conservatives, progressives, and even libertarians are tempted to proclaim that [government program] isn’t working. The ostensible facts bear the conclusion out. Free marketers tend to believe that such programs don’t work due to the endemic inefficiencies of the State. One could therefore conclude that these programs, complete with the misplaced incentives that undergird them, continue simply due to the inertia inherent in a broken system. Some of that might be true, but the phrase, "cui bono" comes to mind. One should consider that before he concludes that a government boondoggle isn’t working. It’s working for somebody, or it really wouldn’t keep on going…and going…and going.

Link

[alienlovechild 75]

It's about profit. Money. The drug war is probably our country's largest economy. Politicians, judges, lawyers, police officers, deputy sheriffs, jailers, prison guards, social workers, probation and parole officers, a third of the military, Customs, FBI, DEA, IRS, U.S. Marshals. The drug war makes these people’s house and car payments at least in part. The drug war is about continuing to expend resources on an issue that will not go away. They'll never legalize it. There's too much money to be made fighting it and too many jobs at stake to make it legal. But it is what they should do, they just won't.

The spending on law enforcement is a symptom not a cause. The spending takes place because most politicans don't want to face the charge that they want kids on illegal drugs. The majority of voters don't use illegal drugs and picture pushers shoving drugs down kids throats and all the crime associated with drug trafficing.

The reality is many younger people are into prescription drugs because they don't have as much of stigma. Most potheads aren't going around killing people and I've personally had more problems with drunks in my life. We outlaw substances the majority doesn't like.

[Heracles 417]

Most potheads aren't going around killing people and I've personally had more problems with drunks in my life.

Just saw on the News tonight that a drunk driver in his truuuuuck slammed into a family and killed them.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Most potheads aren't going around killing people and I've personally had more problems with drunks in my life.

Just saw on the News tonight that a drunk driver in his truuuuuck slammed into a family and killed them.

Sadly, a drunk driver kills someone every day.

[Heracles 417]

Sadly, a drunk driver kills someone every day.

He was coming from a concert. I am guessing the police don't setup roadblocks with booze buses here. I know I have never seen any any Virginia, DC or Maryland.

They usually set these up around random places in VIC, at night, and breathalyze every motorist. They now even administer drug testing. You will basically have 5 cops testing everyone. It's actually funny to drive on a freeway the next morning and see car after car parked on the side because the person was over 0.5 and basically lost their license on the spot.

There is seriously no excuse for drink driving.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Sadly, a drunk driver kills someone every day.

He was coming from a concert. I am guessing the police don't setup roadblocks with booze buses here. I know I have never seen any any Virginia, DC or Maryland.

They usually set these up around random places in VIC, at night, and breathalyze every motorist. They now even administer drug testing. You will basically have 5 cops testing everyone. It's actually funny to drive on a freeway the next morning and see car after car parked on the side because the person was over 0.5 and basically lost their license on the spot.

There is seriously no excuse for drink driving.

No there isn't. Alcohol abuse has a huge impact, and drunk drivers have destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives.

[mRx 16]

It's about profit. Money. The drug war is probably our country's largest economy. Politicians, judges, lawyers, police officers, deputy sheriffs, jailers, prison guards, social workers, probation and parole officers, a third of the military, Customs, FBI, DEA, IRS, U.S. Marshals. The drug war makes these people’s house and car payments at least in part. The drug war is about continuing to expend resources on an issue that will not go away. They'll never legalize it. There's too much money to be made fighting it and too many jobs at stake to make it legal. But it is what they should do, they just won't.

The spending on law enforcement is a symptom not a cause. The spending takes place because most politicans don't want to face the charge that they want kids on illegal drugs. The majority of voters don't use illegal drugs and picture pushers shoving drugs down kids throats and all the crime associated with drug trafficing.

The reality is many younger people are into prescription drugs because they don't have as much of stigma. Most potheads aren't going around killing people and I've personally had more problems with drunks in my life. We outlaw substances the majority doesn't like.

It's pretty idealist to assume that drug spending takes place because politicians don't want the moral burden of allowing people to use drugs. As the article illustrates, the drug war is a huge business, with a constant revenue stream. This fact cannot be ignored. Once logically pondered, a dichotomy arises: The drug warrior's job is to fight drugs--If this mission were ever completed, then the drug warrior will no longer have a job.

Unfortunately, outlawing something doesn't remove the market for it. People believe that drug users exist because of drug dealers; when in fact, the opposite is true. As long as people desire drugs, there will always be people out there to meet that demand. When something is made artificially expensive by legislation, the prospects for entering the trade are vastly increased. Entrepreneurial children realize there is no need to attend a worthless public school, when they can make upwards of $4,000 a week hopping.

As a Conservative, you should hold the ideals that individuals should be allowed to conduct their lives, unencumbered by the State, and as they see fit--providing of course, they don't interfere with another individual's right to do the same.

[mawilson 2,133]

Most potheads aren't going around killing people and I've personally had more problems with drunks in my life.

Just saw on the News tonight that a drunk driver in his truuuuuck slammed into a family and killed them.

Sadly, a drunk driver kills someone every day.

Sober drivers kill people every day too. Don't blame alcohol.

[alienlovechild 75]

It's pretty idealist to assume that drug spending takes place because politicians don't want the moral burden of allowing people to use drugs.

It's far more idealistic to assume a politician will take an unpopular position on an issue that deals with kids and crime. You needn't believe me, just look at the handful of major politicians willing to dump the war on drugs after at least 38 years. This is nothing new.

As the article illustrates, the drug war is a huge business, with a constant revenue stream. This fact cannot be ignored. Once logically pondered, a dichotomy arises: The drug warrior's job is to fight drugs--If this mission were ever completed, then the drug warrior will no longer have a job.

The same could be said for non-drug related crime. Since we still have a lot of crime, should merely open the prisons, fire the cops and close criminal courts, after all don't they profit from non-drug crimes?

As a Conservative, you should hold the ideals that individuals should be allowed to conduct their lives, unencumbered by the State, and as they see fit--providing of course, they don't interfere with another individual's right to do the same.

I'm not wholly supportive of the drug war and may have more personal experience with illegal drugs over a longer period than you on this subject. The idea that those who have gotten to the drug addict phase will make rational decisions and will not step on the rights of others is far-fetched. Minors are vulnerable and some parents are worthless in curbing their kid's drug problems. The only solution would be decriminalization coupled with harsher penalities if the abusers broke other laws to get the money or led them to crimes beyond mere possession or use.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Most potheads aren't going around killing people and I've personally had more problems with drunks in my life.

Just saw on the News tonight that a drunk driver in his truuuuuck slammed into a family and killed them.

Sadly, a drunk driver kills someone every day.

Sober drivers kill people every day too. Don't blame alcohol.

Drinking and driving is preventable.

[NickD 202]

Getting addicted to a drug and being at the mercy of a drug dealer to cream me with high prices is not my bag. Have no problems in telling a dealer to go to hell. If all had common sense, wouldn't even be a market for it.

If things in my life were causing me to drink, that is a form of a very temporary escape, kind of stupid when you think about it, killing yourself when it's those things that are causing you to drink. Get rid of those things is a far better solution.

[mawilson 2,133]

Most potheads aren't going around killing people and I've personally had more problems with drunks in my life.

Just saw on the News tonight that a drunk driver in his truuuuuck slammed into a family and killed them.

Sadly, a drunk driver kills someone every day.

Sober drivers kill people every day too. Don't blame alcohol.

Drinking and driving is preventable.

If a drunk driver kills someone, how do you know he wouldn't have killed that person had he been sober?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Unfortunately however, it's not about the "War on Drugs" or saving kids or anything else. It's about profit. Money. The drug war is probably our country's largest economy. Politicians, judges, lawyers, police officers, deputy sheriffs, jailers, prison guards, social workers, probation and parole officers, a third of the military, Customs, FBI, DEA, IRS, U.S. Marshals. The drug war makes these people’s house and car payments at least in part. The drug war is about continuing to expend resources on an issue that will not go away. They'll never legalize it. There's too much money to be made fighting it and too many jobs at stake to make it legal.[/b] But it is what they should do, they just won't.

Bingo.

[Heracles 417]

What's interesting about this article and Matt's line of reasoning is that regulation would not prevent such things. Better yet, the free market should be allowed to dictate what people take or not. This is just another example of the end result of allowing profit-only companies to do as they please.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Most potheads aren't going around killing people and I've personally had more problems with drunks in my life.

Just saw on the News tonight that a drunk driver in his truuuuuck slammed into a family and killed them.

Sadly, a drunk driver kills someone every day.

Sober drivers kill people every day too. Don't blame alcohol.

Human beings are dangerous. Inanimate objects are not.