What do Mona Charen, Ron Paul, Cory Booker, Pat Robertson, Gov. Gary Johnson, and Sir Richard Branson all have in common?
Almost nothing, I imagine, but they do agree on one thing. It’s time to rethink the War on Drugs.
We can also add John Stossel to the list. Here’s some of what he wrote in his recent Townhall column. Let’s start with his powerful – and pragmatic – argument that the Drug War encourages criminal behavior.
The media (including Fox News) run frightening stories about Mexican cocaine cartels and marijuana gangs. Few of my colleagues stop to think that this is a consequence of the war, that decriminalization would end the violence. There are no wine “cartels” or beer “gangs.” No one “smuggles” liquor. Liquor dealers are called “businesses,” not gangs, and they “ship” products instead of “smuggling” them. They settle disputes with lawyers rather than guns. Everything can be abused, but that doesn’t mean government can stop it. Government runs amok when it tries to protect us from ourselves. Drug-related crime occurs because the drugs are available only through the artificially expensive black market. Drug users steal not because drugs drive them to steal. Our government says heroin and nicotine are similarly addictive, but no one robs convenience stores to get Marlboros.
Citing the work of a scholar at the Manhattan Institute, John also comments on the Drug War’s destructive impact on the black community.
John McWhorter, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, indicts the drug war for “destroying black America.” McWhorter, by the way, is black. McWhorter sees prohibition as the saboteur of black families. “Enduring prison time is seen as a badge of strength. It’s regarded (with some justification) as an unjust punishment for selling people something they want. The ex-con is a hero rather than someone who went the wrong way.” He enumerates the positive results from ending prohibition. “No more gang wars over turf, no more kids shooting each other. … Men get jobs, as they did in the old days, even in the worst ghettos, because they have to.”
I don’t reckon that the Drug War does as much damage to African-Americans as the crummy government-run school system, but it’s probably not too far behind.
Stossel closes by looking at first principles.
“Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness,” economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, “why not prevent him from reading bad books and bad plays … ? The mischief done by bad ideologies is more pernicious … than that done by narcotic drugs.” If we adults own our own bodies, we ought to get to control what we put in them. It’s legitimate for government to protect me from reckless drivers and drunken airline pilots — but not to protect me from myself.
This is right on the mark. The War on Drugs is misguided because it creates crime. It’s misguided because it hurts the black community. And it’s misguided since government shouldn’t be in charge of micro-managing our lives.
P.S. Also keep in mind that the Drug War is the main excuse politicians given when they impose bad asset forfeiture laws and costly anti-money laundering laws. And it’s the Drug War that is usually the motive when politicians and courts erode our Fourth Amendment liberties and trample our individual rights.
P.P.S. Would you rather agree with John Stossel or Hillary Clinton?
P.P.P.S. And I’m sure you want to side with these Montana patriots, right?
P. P.P.P.S. You don’t need to approve of drugs or use drugs to recognize the Drug War is misguided. You can be uptight and straight-laced like me, but still recognize that the Drug War does far more harm than good.
[…] et de plus en plus de personnalités nous soutiennent ( aussi bien des libertariens tels que John Stossel and Gary Johnson, mais aussi des sceptiques classiques comme Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, Mona […]
[…] and more states are liberalizing, and we’re gaining more and more allies (libertarians such as John Stossel and Gary Johnson but also traditional skeptics such as Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, Mona […]
[…] and more states are liberalizing, and we’re gaining more and more allies (libertarians such as John Stossel and Gary Johnson but also traditional skeptics such as Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, Mona […]
[…] and more states are liberalizing and we’re gaining more and more allies (libertarians such as John Stossel and Gary Johnson, but also traditional skeptics such as Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, Mona […]
Dick Richards and Ted Levy, I am inclined to agree with people who say that if they are not harming anybody that they should be free to live their lives as they see fit. Some people claim not to be promoting legalizing Marijuana, however, they are for making sentences for its possession much less severe.
[…] It’s worth noting that voices as diverse as John Stossel, Mona Charen, Gary Johnson, Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, John McCain, and Richard Branson all agree […]
[…] It’s worth noting that voices as diverse as John Stossel, Mona Charen, Gary Johnson, Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, John McCain, and Richard Branson all agree […]
[…] but there’s actually a very broad coalition of people who favor reform. Folks such as John Stossel, Gary Johnson, John McCain, Mona Charen, Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, Rick Perry, and Richard […]
Waging a war on drugs is absurd. Drug use will persist in places where it is illegal anyway.In my opinion, John Stossel is right about this.
[…] but there’s actually a very broad coalition of people who favor reform. Folks such as John Stossel, Gary Johnson, John McCain, Mona Charen, Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, Rick Perry, and Richard […]
The drug war is a waste of time and financial resources. Regardless of the law, people will basically give the middle finger to the government in some cases.
[…] rather side with folks such as John Stossel, Gary Johnson, John McCain, Mona Charen, Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, Rick Perry, and Richard […]
[…] joins a growing list of people – such as John Stossel, Gary Johnson, John McCain, Mona Charen, Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, and Richard […]
[…] joins a growing list of people – such as John Stossel, Gary Johnson, John McCain, Mona Charen, Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, and Richard Branson – […]
[…] are not the only ones to think the drug war is foolish. Yes, you find libertarians such as John Stossel and Gary Johnson on the list of those who want to end prohibition. But you also find John McCain, […]
[…] Just in case you think I’m an outlier, I invite you to read the thoughts of John McCain, John Stossel, Mona Charen, Gary Johnson, Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, and Richard […]
[…] do John Stossel, Mona Charen, Gary Johnson, Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, and Richard Branson all have in […]
[…] do John Stossel, Mona Charen, Gary Johnson, Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, and Richard Branson all have in […]
[…] do John Stossel, Mona Charen, Gary Johnson, Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, and Richard Branson all have in […]
[…] The good thing about being a libertarian is that you are motivated by freedom, which is a very noble principle, and you have lots of evidence on your side, whether the issue is economics or personal liberty. […]
[…] The good thing about being a libertarian is that you are motivated by freedom, which is a very noble principle, and you have lots of evidence on your side, whether the issue is economics or personal liberty. […]
[…] is why prohibition was a flop. Which is why the current War on Drugs is so misguided. And so on and so […]
[…] since I’m a libertarian and the specific issue is about curtailing the foolish Drug War, it goes without saying that this is something that belongs on this blog. Especially when we get to […]
[…] John Stossel, Mona Charen, Gary Johnson, Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, and Richard Branson, I’m skeptical of […]
[…] shared some very interesting commentary and opinions on the Drug War from folks such as John Stossel, Mona Charen, Gary Johnson, Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, and Richard […]
[…] shared some very interesting commentary and opinions on the Drug War from folks such as John Stossel, Mona Charen, Gary Johnson, Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, and Richard […]
Simple. Legalize everything. But let the users be registered like british heroin users. Arrange for product to be standardized, available in every pharmacy to whoever has a cocaine ID, or a meth ID, or a Cannibis ID. To get one, you give up certain activities, like flying planes, operating heavy equipment (including cars), working in jobs dealing with money or children. And, of course, not voting anymore. That is one British practice I can agree with. If you share with a non-registered citizen, he could avoid jail by registering as well–otherwise, probation with narc-anon sessions for the first offense. If all the bag boys and janitors are registered users, that would take the glamour out of dope, for sure.
[…] is why prohibition was a flop. Which is why the current War on Drugs is so misguided. And so on and so […]
[…] is why prohibition was a flop. Which is why the current War on Drugs is so misguided. And so on and so […]
[…] is why prohibition was a flop. Which is why the current War on Drugs is so misguided. And so on and so […]
[…] are some wise words on the War on Drugs from John […]
I plainly stated alcohol should remain legal. The war on theft and murder is failing too, despite the laws it still goes on constantly. Should we legalize that? It is an idiotic standard. Just because we have not achieved the total abolition of hard drugs doesn’t make legalizing them right. The “solution” you are proposing doesn’t solve the problem. It would lead to more drug use and increase the social toll they take on the country.
@sean
But you’re simply advocating the completely unsuccessful policies that have been in place for many many years.
When what you’re doing is not working, then you need to change what you’re doing – use a different approach.
Marijuana is no more addictive than alcohol or cigarettes, yet is illegal. Nobody is suggesting selling it to kids, but the same laws that govern alcohol couldn’t do any worse that the current failed policies. Remember, alcohol also used to be illegal, and it being legal today causes no gang murders. Or do you also want alcohol prohibition again?
Please let us know, do you think society would be better off if alcohol were totally illegal (as is marijuana) or are we better off with the current laws?
Don’t you realize that there were no problems with drugs 120 years ago when cocaine was legal… Or do you deny the obvious?
Is the grim failure of the existing drug laws not dramatic enough for you? Don’t you want the problem solved? Then why continue to insist on what’s already proven to fail????? Rather look at history and build on policies which have already been proven to work!
I see that there are still a few points being over looked. When prohibition was overturned, did all the gangs disappear and the killing stop? No. Did the overturning of prohibition increase alcoholism through out the country, thereby increasing DWI accidents and family assaults resulting in more deaths that the criminals? Yes.Do you think that there will be hundreds of thousands (If not millions) of junkies created? Yes. How about this for an idea… We actually go after dealers, put them in jail for very long times…Go after them internationally or cut off funding to those countries who don’t support our efforts… But the absurdity of legalizing drugs is just plain stupid.
Hard street drugs will never be legalized but this Libertarian wet dream is presented over and over again as a cure for the problem. Legalizing drugs will not erase the social cost or crimes related to using drugs. It also would not put the illegal trade out of business because underage people would still buy from local drug pushers. Or, there would be non-legal (and more lethal) variants offered by the them.
Alcohol is legal and there is a tremendous amount of death and crime related to it’s sale and use. It should be legal because it can be used in moderation with no ill effect. If you want to make a case for legalizing recreational drugs on freedom grounds, go ahead but don’t pretend it solves the drug problem. I for one have no desire to support the thousands of additional addicts that would result from drugs being legitimized by society and made easier to get.
Legalizing street drugs would also mean the government would have to make them exempt from FDA approval and remove liability (from the sellers) for the abuse and death that results. How would that be fair to the legitimate pharmaceutical industry? If that wasn’t part of it, lawyers would sue the makers out of business within months of them being made legal.
@robert102
Despite your accusations, you’re the one making an outrageously false claim here! I’m a libertarian and I’m NOT focusing on the fact that bad laws cause crime. Perhaps you mean some but not all libertarians…
All benefits are temporary over a long enough time frame, but you say there’s no benefit to recreational drug use and then outline a temporary one. This just demonstrates your lack of clear thinking! Just because you have a thought doesn’t mean it’s valid, that’s called being gullible!
Yet is there such a thing as victimless crime? I don’t do drugs but I have no problem with you choosing to do so provided you don’t expect me to pay for them or for any damage you do.
Your post suggests you’ve made up your mind, and don’t want the facts to get in the way. You’re “being right” – exactly as described in my original post, so you can avoid looking ridiculous in the future by checking out that link at http://www.lifestrategies.net/being-right
@Dick Richards. “I struggle with this one a bit. Legalizing hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, etc. would absolutely result in the drugs being easier to get.”
Dick, these drugs are already extremely easy to get if one has the means.
The problems are:
1. Drugs are expensive because of the fact that they are illegal. Consequently users steal to get the money to pay for them, and we lose our property to theft and police investigatory costs.
2. When users get caught they go to prison, which you and I pay throught the teeth for, especially if they have associated medical problems such as HIV or Hepatitis.
3. Users overdose and we end up paying for their emergency room visits.
4. The very illegality of drug abuse and imprisonment breaks up families, and puts them on welfare.
5. Children grow up seeing their parents abuse and become abusers.
6. Once the unlucky small-time abusers get caught and are put in prison, they learn how to become really deadly.
7. Drug users in the US are sending billions of dollars to drug lords in Mexico, and terrorists in Afghanistan.
8. Billions of tax dollars are being wasted annually trying to win an unwinnable war.
9. We are putting our National Security at risk by fighting a war of attrition against drugs that simply and demonstrably cannot be won, while ignoring our border security.
10. Their is simply no way to measure the adverse effects that this unwinnable war is reaping on the psyche and wallets of Americans.
11. The war on drugs is hurting common folk in countries that are being taken over by the drug lords. Whole economies are being created where one must choose between starvation or soul-selling.
12. Life has been cheapened, and brutal murder has become commonplace.
Now I am not advocating unregulated legality, but surely we should acknowledge failure, and figure out a smarter more workable approach.
Unfortunately, the libertarians focus on the wrong thing here, and make an outrageously false claim, the laws cause crime. The decision to break the law is an entirely personal one on the part of the criminal, and the law is just a rationalization. Karl Marx had a very similar belief, the all crime was caused by social disorder, not the behavior of the criminals.
The real problem with so-called “recreational” drug use is that it is all cost, with no benefit. Even the user only benefits temporarily, while “high”, but then comes down, and has to seek more drugs. The damage goes on, however, and it’s temporary at all. The cost/benefit calculation just doesn’t work.
Do we really want to sacrifice our children to this philosophical concept?
If you don’t like the way drug laws are being enforced, then change the enforcement, don’t throw out the laws altogether.
@Dick Richards.
If you check into US history, you’ll find that cocaine was legal a hundred years ago. In fact, the coca-cola name was entirely accurate because it originally contained cocaine!
Yet was the consequence for society of cocaine being entirely legal worse or better than the consequence of illegality today?
All you need to do is just look at the evidence. Then you’ll need to change your mind when you know what the evidence says. You can’t improve your thinking without abandoning incorrect thinking and avoiding being right.
Even as a strong libertarian, I struggle with this one a bit. Legalizing hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, etc. would absolutely result in the drugs being easier to get. Do we KNOW the impact of that consequence would be better than the current criminality? And we put ourselves in this strange position: one would need a prescription for cold medicine, but would not need one for heroin (or would somehow need to find a doctor to prescribe it).
[…] Wise Words on the Drug War from John Stossel « International Liberty. Share this:TwitterRedditFacebookEmailPrintDiggStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← Obama’s Incuriosity and ‘Confident Ignorance’ Make Him Dangerous As A President – Investors.com […]
Politijim:
However, good luck convincing the parent of every current or former teenager that heroine, LSD, meth and coke should NOT be illegal. Your argument about liquor falls apart when you realize it IS heavily regulated both in production, marketing and consumption.
—–
First, a large number of parents today USED drugs in their youth. Yet they turned out sufficiently OK to raise kids themselves. So this argument amounts to the claim large numbers of parents are grossly hypocritical.
Second, it seems politijim is unaware of the distinction between regulation nd prohibition. I had thought it a simple and basic distinction, but perhaps not…
Hopefully more and more prominent pundits, like Stossel, will call for the end of the drug war.
While I oppose the drug war for moral reasons, I doubt that moral suasion will be the means of ending the war. I strongly suspect that the war will end as prohibition ended in 1933. The key was the desperate need for revenue by all levels of government. The desire for tax revenue trumped the moral arguments behind the temperance movement. I can see the same scenario being played out today. At some point, a state or county will realize that decriminalization or legalization of narcotics will be a net plus to an intractable budget situation. Once one sizable government does this, others will follow. I wrote about this in a blog post titled “A Scenario for Ending the War on Drugs in the US” (http://thinkingmachineblog.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/a-scenario-for-ending-the-war-on-drugs-in-the-us/)
So it’s ok to still regulate pharmaceutical drugs so that people aren’t killed by them (or misled that they help) but to decriminalize street drugs?
I am slowly coming to the conclusion that the drug war isn’t helpful – NOT because of the desire to keep hard drugs off of the street, but because the laws originally put in place to target drug pushers are being badly misused.
However, good luck convincing the parent of every current or former teenager that heroine, LSD, meth and coke should NOT be illegal. Your argument about liquor falls apart when you realize it IS heavily regulated both in production, marketing and consumption.
You will NEVER get a majority of Americans to buy your argument they way you are presenting it.