A fellow blogger and frequent reader/poster to this site posed a question back in November 2008 — it’s a pity that I just now found it — but the essence of the question was this: What should the government’s role be when it comes to certain issues of our day, including drugs, abortion, gay marriage, etc. When I read it, I then replied on his site that I implied that each issue could be taken in turn because each, I think, is unique. In other words, I don’t know that the role of government would be the same in each case. Here is his original post for more information.
Given that he lists these specific issues — drugs, guns, gay marriage, abortion, welfare, war — let me begin with the first, and perhaps, in subsequent order, I will take the others one-by-one. At the risk of clogging up his blog with a 5,000 polemic, I suggested a piecemeal approach. So here we go.
I don’t necessarily side with Libertarians on all points, but on the War on Drugs, I certainly do. As the indispensable “Drug War Clock” tell us, the country has funneled $34,008,082,858 into this pretend, metaphorical war, a number that is growing daily, this year alone. Like the failed Prohibition of the early 20th century, I think this war breaks down at, not only the constitutional level, but at the practical level. From the 18th Amendment, we have these words:
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
But after organized crime rose and after legislators, and surely the country, realized that A) prohibiting substances that folks will consume with or without government approval is a waste of time and energy, and B) organized crime tends to rise when said substances are driven underground to the black market seem to me to be salient points, which can carry over to other substances. Let’s take the case of pot. Marijuana has been shown to be at least as destructive to the body as nicotene, if not less destructive, because regular users don’t consume as many joints as nicotene users do cigarettes in one day. Needless to say, inhaling smoke is a bad idea whichever way you slice it.
In all honesty, I think drinking alcohol is at least as dangerous to society and individuals as smoking pot, if not more. It impairs users more than marijuna does, and this fact is undeniable. I know this from research and from past personal experience. According to this Time magazine article, one in 25 people worldwide die from alcohol-related deaths. How many die from marijuana use? That number escapes us. We don’t know, but it certainly doesn’t kill people who overdose, as does alcohol, heroin, cocaine and others. To the contrary, there is no such thing as overdosing on marijuana.
So, to come back around. Constitutionally, what should we do about drugs from the governmental level? Clearly, there is nothing in the country’s great, foundational works about substance abuse that I’m aware, so Prohibition was purely a conjured, and probably unconstitutional, scheme that did not work, unless we want to summon the “promote the general Welfare” statement in the preamble. We do know that drug use in America was rampant before the powers that be decided to put a clamp on it. It’s clear that we had opium, laudanum and others users in the 19th century and before.
I think I would fit the War on Drugs in the unconstitutional category with regard to the powers granted the federal government. Education about the dangers of drug use and the ill effects in schools and other civil areas seems to me to be the best approach, for when you prohibit something, anything, we might as well bank on the fact that people will try it … simply because it’s prohibited. In fact, the Obama administration represents a shift on the “War on Drugs.” This camp has said it would not refer to it as such, and the new drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, would not refer to it as thus, according to The Wall Street Journal. I feel this reader comment by David Dimston should be lauded for its truth and frankness:
That the War on Drugs has been a complete failure is not even a question anymore.
Thus, the folks who have addictive tendencies, will, of course, become addicted, but those who don’t may try it once or twice, and probably conclude it’s not for them or that it’s hard to function in any “real” life using such substances. There’s no sense in jailing non-violent offenders, at all. And this is a gross misuse of public resources. Indeed, as Prohibition shows clear as day, violent crime actually increases when governments intervene and attempt to legislate the usage of substances that folks will use, one way or the other, legal or not.