Should Drugs be Legal
One of the greatest blows ever struck against organized crime happened on Dec. 3, 1933. No gun was fired. No Mob figures were taken, prisoner. It was a day of peace and prosperity. One that would grow the economy while making sure that law enforcement was more flush with cash than ever before. It was the day “Prohibition” ended.
With that one democratic move, the mob and its cronies came falling to earth, and the murder rate fell with it.
Make no mistake, the mob loved America’s war on booze. They bought politicians and supported campaigns to keep the ravages of John Barleycorn as far from the American people as possible. At least, that was the case with legal booze. Illegal booze, on the other hand, flowed like a river of corruption. And with it, “The Mob” along with Murder Inc. grew to unparalleled size.
The simplest way to make criminality profitable is to manufacture crime. This is precisely what the do-gooders and ambitious politicians set out to do with prohibition. Not intentionally, mind you, but their actions had the same effect, nonetheless.
This is called “The Law of Unintended Consequences.” What moral men and woman may intend with their actions, often produces the opposite effect. Meaning, not only did booze not evaporate into the darkness as intended when prohibition became the law of the land, it gave rise to a level of criminality that was far worse than what it sought to cure.
When prohibition ended, organized crime had to look elsewhere for their livelihood. So, drugs, gambling, and prostitution would have to compensate.
Without laws to protect people from themselves—from any of these vices—no crime can be committed. This creates its own paradox; if there is no law, there are no criminals. Conversely, with too many laws, everyone eventually becomes a criminal. By largely eliminating victimless crimes, like drug use, no prison industrial complex would exist at great cost to the taxpayers, which thrives primarily as the result of the war on drugs. Likewise, no massive police force would be needed, fighting crimes that can’t be stopped, even if people wanted them too. Neither would there be a substantial expenditure of tax dollars fighting an endless war that only grows. Similarly, there would be no clogging of the courts. No decimating of inner city neighborhoods, which is where these illegal industries tend to thrive as the police and the politicians wink at the crime, while they pander to today’s versions of the well-intended do-gooder. There are, after all, few big donors from the inner city, just as registered voters are few and far between.
My intent is not to cast aspersions on well-intended people. I’m merely suggesting that good intentions do not equal good outcomes. Certainly, conservatives and libertarians understand this argument. At least, as it pertains to the overwhelmingly destructive force of America’s welfare system, which rewards out-of-wedlock births and punishes marriage.
Welfare, like drug prohibition, has given rise to a third world culture in the heart of America. One overrun by drugs and murder that overwhelmingly impacts poor African Americans and Hispanics, just as it did nearly a hundred years ago in America’s predominately White, ethnic ghettos. If it had been designed by politicians with the intention of destroying communities, it probably wouldn’t have been half as effective in achieving those goals. The fact that both, the drug war and the welfare state are the product of good intentions, only makes them harder to undo.
Recently, I saw an interview with Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson. When asked if the Black Lives Matter’s assertion that the slogan “All Lives Matter” was offensive, Johnson agreed that it was, saying that Blacks were killed or arrested by the police at 6 x their portion of the population. This was quickly met with statics showing that Black men commit violent crimes at 8 x the rate of Whites, meaning, they were actually under-represented in terms of arrests.
So, which is it? Does a White culture falsely imprison Black men as a matter of routine because of racism? This is what’s being inferred? Or, does the artificial manufacture of criminality, through well-intended but ineffectual laws create illegal entrepreneurs, who simply do what all business people do, fill the demand for a product that does not diminish simply because it’s illegal? The ghetto, unfortunately, ends up being the safest place to set up shop if you want to sell poison and avoid undue police harassment. And, again, for a very simple reason, because poverty creates a demand for whatever jobs can be created in a crime riddled ghetto where no reasonable entrepreneur would normally invest. It was no different when these were Irish, Jewish or Polish ghettos. No successful business willfully sets up shop where robberies and murder are a regular part of the landscape. On the other hand, if you increase the number of arrests in an effort to deal with the crime, most of those being arrested will end up being sons of the community. This eventually, creates its own backlash, and the problem only grows.
That’s where we are as a nation, torn between two completely different worldviews, both of which are informed by their own rhetoric and political alliances.
Here’s the simplest solution. You can’t get rid of drugs because the demand for them remains high. Meaning, this demand will be filled whether, legally or illegally. Legal, however, is always the better option. It’s also less costly and brings in much-needed tax revenue, as well as some semblance of peace to the inner city as the illegal drug trade moves uptown to new, safer digs. However, as long as welfare creates perverse incentives towards family formation (and it clearly does) peace and prosperity in the inner city, will never really take root.
Therein is the problem. “Law and Order” politicians exploit crime as a means of getting elected, knowing full and well that legalizing drugs is a tough sell. While other politicians know that the welfare state is as a sacrosanct for their core constituents as abortion is, and they probably couldn’t get elected without it.
It would seem that these perverse incentives work multiple ways. One way is for those who administer them, like the politicians. And the other is for the recipients. The voters also play a role by remaining uninformed and largely indifferent because it is “Those People” who are at risk and not their own children. So, they continue to empower politicians who will maintain the status quo. In that regard, bigotry, if not racism, is certainly a part of the equation. Just as good intentions, from all parties, enable it to exist and even thrive, which it couldn’t, if drugs were legal. But, most Americans find this idea untenable, so the ongoing drama continues.
The illusion of good intentions, however, assuages the conscience of well-intended Americans so that they, like the politicians can sleep soundly—out of earshot—as the gunfire continues, down below.
Mark Magula
With that one democratic move, the mob and its cronies came falling to earth, and the murder rate fell with it.
Make no mistake, the mob loved America’s war on booze. They bought politicians and supported campaigns to keep the ravages of John Barleycorn as far from the American people as possible. At least, that was the case with legal booze. Illegal booze, on the other hand, flowed like a river of corruption. And with it, “The Mob” along with Murder Inc. grew to unparalleled size.
The simplest way to make criminality profitable is to manufacture crime. This is precisely what the do-gooders and ambitious politicians set out to do with prohibition. Not intentionally, mind you, but their actions had the same effect, nonetheless.
This is called “The Law of Unintended Consequences.” What moral men and woman may intend with their actions, often produces the opposite effect. Meaning, not only did booze not evaporate into the darkness as intended when prohibition became the law of the land, it gave rise to a level of criminality that was far worse than what it sought to cure.
When prohibition ended, organized crime had to look elsewhere for their livelihood. So, drugs, gambling, and prostitution would have to compensate.
Without laws to protect people from themselves—from any of these vices—no crime can be committed. This creates its own paradox; if there is no law, there are no criminals. Conversely, with too many laws, everyone eventually becomes a criminal. By largely eliminating victimless crimes, like drug use, no prison industrial complex would exist at great cost to the taxpayers, which thrives primarily as the result of the war on drugs. Likewise, no massive police force would be needed, fighting crimes that can’t be stopped, even if people wanted them too. Neither would there be a substantial expenditure of tax dollars fighting an endless war that only grows. Similarly, there would be no clogging of the courts. No decimating of inner city neighborhoods, which is where these illegal industries tend to thrive as the police and the politicians wink at the crime, while they pander to today’s versions of the well-intended do-gooder. There are, after all, few big donors from the inner city, just as registered voters are few and far between.
My intent is not to cast aspersions on well-intended people. I’m merely suggesting that good intentions do not equal good outcomes. Certainly, conservatives and libertarians understand this argument. At least, as it pertains to the overwhelmingly destructive force of America’s welfare system, which rewards out-of-wedlock births and punishes marriage.
Welfare, like drug prohibition, has given rise to a third world culture in the heart of America. One overrun by drugs and murder that overwhelmingly impacts poor African Americans and Hispanics, just as it did nearly a hundred years ago in America’s predominately White, ethnic ghettos. If it had been designed by politicians with the intention of destroying communities, it probably wouldn’t have been half as effective in achieving those goals. The fact that both, the drug war and the welfare state are the product of good intentions, only makes them harder to undo.
Recently, I saw an interview with Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson. When asked if the Black Lives Matter’s assertion that the slogan “All Lives Matter” was offensive, Johnson agreed that it was, saying that Blacks were killed or arrested by the police at 6 x their portion of the population. This was quickly met with statics showing that Black men commit violent crimes at 8 x the rate of Whites, meaning, they were actually under-represented in terms of arrests.
So, which is it? Does a White culture falsely imprison Black men as a matter of routine because of racism? This is what’s being inferred? Or, does the artificial manufacture of criminality, through well-intended but ineffectual laws create illegal entrepreneurs, who simply do what all business people do, fill the demand for a product that does not diminish simply because it’s illegal? The ghetto, unfortunately, ends up being the safest place to set up shop if you want to sell poison and avoid undue police harassment. And, again, for a very simple reason, because poverty creates a demand for whatever jobs can be created in a crime riddled ghetto where no reasonable entrepreneur would normally invest. It was no different when these were Irish, Jewish or Polish ghettos. No successful business willfully sets up shop where robberies and murder are a regular part of the landscape. On the other hand, if you increase the number of arrests in an effort to deal with the crime, most of those being arrested will end up being sons of the community. This eventually, creates its own backlash, and the problem only grows.
That’s where we are as a nation, torn between two completely different worldviews, both of which are informed by their own rhetoric and political alliances.
Here’s the simplest solution. You can’t get rid of drugs because the demand for them remains high. Meaning, this demand will be filled whether, legally or illegally. Legal, however, is always the better option. It’s also less costly and brings in much-needed tax revenue, as well as some semblance of peace to the inner city as the illegal drug trade moves uptown to new, safer digs. However, as long as welfare creates perverse incentives towards family formation (and it clearly does) peace and prosperity in the inner city, will never really take root.
Therein is the problem. “Law and Order” politicians exploit crime as a means of getting elected, knowing full and well that legalizing drugs is a tough sell. While other politicians know that the welfare state is as a sacrosanct for their core constituents as abortion is, and they probably couldn’t get elected without it.
It would seem that these perverse incentives work multiple ways. One way is for those who administer them, like the politicians. And the other is for the recipients. The voters also play a role by remaining uninformed and largely indifferent because it is “Those People” who are at risk and not their own children. So, they continue to empower politicians who will maintain the status quo. In that regard, bigotry, if not racism, is certainly a part of the equation. Just as good intentions, from all parties, enable it to exist and even thrive, which it couldn’t, if drugs were legal. But, most Americans find this idea untenable, so the ongoing drama continues.
The illusion of good intentions, however, assuages the conscience of well-intended Americans so that they, like the politicians can sleep soundly—out of earshot—as the gunfire continues, down below.
Mark Magula
