When writing about money laundering laws, I’ll sometimes highlight gross abuses by government and I’ll periodically make the usual libertarian arguments about privacy.
But I mostly focus on how the laws simply don’t make sense from a cost-benefit perspective. Anti-money laundering laws and regulations impose large burdens on the private sector, which creates disproportionate hardship for the poor. Yet there’s no evidence that the laws actually hinder criminal activity, which was the rationale for imposing the laws in the first place.
I have the same attitude about the War on Drugs. Yes, I get upset that people are mistreated and it irks me as a libertarian that people aren’t free to make their own choices (even if they are dumb choices) about what to put in their bodies.
But what really gets me angry is the absurd misallocation of law enforcement resources. Consider this info from a recent WonkBlog column in the Washington Post about the ever-expanding efforts of government to harass drug users.
Federal figures on drug arrests and drug use over the past three decades tell the story. Drug-possession arrests skyrocketed, from fewer than 200 arrests for every 100,000 people in 1979…, hovering near 400 arrests per 100,000 people. …despite the tough-on-crime push that led to the surge in arrests in recent decades, illicit drug use today is more common among Americans age 12 and older than it was in the early 1980s. Federal figures show no correlation between drug-possession arrests and rates of drug use during that time.
But here’s the part that should upset all of us, even if we don’t like drugs or even if we think they should be illegal.
Instead of focusing on the fight against crimes that actually have victims (such as robbery, murder, rape, assault, etc), the government is squandering an immense about of time, energy, resources, and money on drug arrests.
…arrests for drug possession continue to make up a significant chunk of modern-day police work. “Around the country, police make more arrests for drug possession than for any other crime,” the report finds, citing FBI data. “More than one of every nine arrests by state law enforcement is for drug possession, amounting to more than 1.25 million arrests each year.” In fact, police make more arrests for marijuana possession alone than for all violent crimes combined.
That last sentence is breathtaking. Does anyone think that busting potheads is more important than fighting genuine crime?!?
Do you want an example of law enforcement resources being misallocated?
Well, this story from New Hampshire tells you everything you need to know.
…an 81-year-old grandmother had been growing…the plant as medicine, a way to ease arthritis and glaucoma and help her sleep at night. Tucked away in a raspberry patch and separated by a fence from any neighbors, the plant was nearly ready for harvest when a military-style helicopter and police descended on Sept. 21. In a joint raid, the Massachusetts National Guard and State Police entered her yard and cut down the solitary plant…authorities are using budgeted funds, prior to the end of the federal fiscal year Saturday, to gas up helicopters and do flyovers. …“Is this the way we want our taxpayer money spent, to hassle an 81-year-old and law-abiding patients?” Cutler said.
Gee, I don’t know about you, but I’ll sleep more comfortably tonight knowing that lots of taxpayer money was squandered to seize a pot plant from this dangerous granny!
Still not convinced that law enforcement resources aren’t being wasted? And still not upset that lives are being disrupted and harmed by heavy-handed government.
Then consider this horror story from Reason.
James Slatic, a California medical marijuana business owner, found out all his family’s bank accounts had been seized by the government one day in January when his 19-year-old daughter tried to buy lunch at the San Jose State University cafeteria and her card was declined. Slatic’s wife tried to transfer money to their daughter, figuring she had simply overdrawn her account, as teenagers are wont to do, but her account wouldn’t work, either. What the Slatics soon learned was the San Diego police had frozen all of their bank accounts: $55,258 from Slatic’s personal checking and savings account; $34,175 from his wife Annette’s account; and a combined $11,260 from the savings accounts of their two teenage daughters, Penny and Lily. …The Slatics’ crimes? None. Or at least, the San Diego District Attorney’s Office hasn’t charged them with any in the nine months since it seized their accounts.
His business also was shut down, which wasn’t good news for him or his employees that are now out on the street.
The trouble for James Slatic began five days before his family’s accounts were frozen, when around 30 San Diego police officers and DEA agents raided Slatic’s medical marijuana business, Med-West Distribution, and seized nearly $325,000 in cash from a safe. …The raid was a crushing blow to Slatic—not to mention his 35 employees, who lost their jobs and benefits without notice.
Here’s a video detailing this disgusting abuse by government.
There is some good news. Voters in several states voted last week to decriminalize pot.
And for those who worry that legalizing marijuana will be a gateway to decriminalizing harder drugs, I encourage you to read this Cato Institute study on what happened after Portugal legalized all drugs early last decade.
This isn’t an argument about whether you should use drugs, like drugs, or approve of drug use. You can be the drug equivalent of a teetotaler like me and still realize that it makes no sense for the government to squander lots of money and hurt lots of lives simply because politicians want to control what people choose to put in their own bodies.
[…] discussions about drug legalization, skeptics worry about addiction. I think that’s a legitimate concern, but the focus is too […]
[…] the War on Drugs is wasteful and inane, I obviously have no problem with Sullum’s […]
[…] to decrease the scope of police work if that means less enforcement of victimless crimes such as drugs, gambling, and prostitution, but I don’t want to decrease the scope of police work in […]
[…] laws, wretched asset forfeiture laws are largely the result of the foolish War on Drugs. One bad policy generates another bad policy. Lather, rinse, […]
[…] never claimed legalization is a zero-cost policy. Instead, as I wrote in 2018, “I think the social harm of prohibition is greater than the social harm of […]
[…] libertarians believe in legalizing drugs, gambling, and prostitution, then why have laws against testing out bulletproof vests while […]
[…] want drugs to be legal, even though I personally disapprove of drug […]
[…] James Slatic […]
[…] James Slatic […]
[…] another takeaway from the election results: The American people have rejected the foolish and expensive War on […]
[…] for jury duty, you know what to do if the government is persecuting someone for owning a gun, doing drugs, selling sex, gambling, or anything else that doesn’t involve an actual […]
[…] includes drug use, sugary drinks, gambling, over-eating, smoking, voting for socialists, hang gliding, alcohol usage, […]
[…] preferable to balanced budget rules. And I wish they understood that disapproval of things such as drug use, gambling, and prostitution doesn’t mean those activities should be […]
[…] set of principles explains my views on a wide range of issues, such as the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, money laundering, search and seizure, and the death […]
[…] don’t approve of drugs and I’ve never used drugs, but I think the social harm of prohibition is greater than the social harm of […]
[…] James Slatic […]
[…] and ineffective money-laundering laws, wretched asset forfeiture laws are largely the result of the foolish War on Drugs. One bad policy generates another bad policy. Lather, rinse, […]
[…] and ineffective money-laundering laws, wretched asset forfeiture laws are largely the result of the foolish War on Drugs. One bad policy generates another bad policy. Lather, rinse, […]
[…] Caswell, Jacques Wajsfelner, Jeff Councelller, Eric Garner, Martha Boneta, Corey Statham, James Slatic, Carole Hinders, Salvatore Culosi, and James Lieto, as well as the Sierra Pacific Company and […]
[…] infringe on the freedom of others to partake. And you can make that decision for moral reasons or utilitarian […]
[…] And even if one doesn’t care about individual rights, the Drug War is an irrational misallocation of law enforcement resources. […]
[…] don’t approve of drugs and I’ve never used drugs, but I think the social harm of prohibition is greater than the social harm of […]
[…] Inane? […]
[…] Inane? […]
[…] This first appeared at the author’s website. […]
Waging a war on drugs is absurd. Just legalize them and tax the sale of them.
[…] are all good answers, and you could also add housing subsidies, the drug war, and lot of other example to the list of programs that enjoy lots of political support even though […]
“This Illegal Immigrant Just Won $1 Million From The Government For Drinking Liquid Meth He Was Carrying”
by : ROBERT KRAYCHIK
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14677/illegal-immigrant-just-won-1-million-government-robert-kraychik#
“America’s Fentanyl Crisis “Is Surging, With No End In Sight”
by Tyler Durden
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-25/americas-fentanyl-crisis-surging-no-end-sight
[…] only activities that harm other people should be against the law. So get rid of laws against drugs, gambling, cash deposits, and other victimless […]
[…] Nancy Black, Russ Caswell, Jacques Wajsfelner, Jeff Councelller, Eric Garner, Martha Boneta, James Slatic, Carole Hinders, Salvatore Culosi, and James Lieto, as well as the Sierra Pacific Company and the […]
[…] Nancy Black, Russ Caswell, Jacques Wajsfelner, Jeff Councelller, Eric Garner, Martha Boneta, James Slatic, Carole Hinders, Salvatore Culosi, and James Lieto, as well as the Sierra Pacific Company and the […]
[…] Nancy Black, Russ Caswell, Jacques Wajsfelner, Jeff Councelller, Eric Garner, Martha Boneta, James Slatic, Carole Hinders, Salvatore Culosi, and James Lieto, as well as the Sierra Pacific Company and the […]
[…] don’t approve of drugs and I’ve never used drugs, but I think the social harm of prohibition is greater than the social harm of […]
[…] don’t approve of drugs and I’ve never used drugs, but I think the social harm of prohibition is greater than the social harm of […]
[…] Henderson’s Media Watchdog. Dan Mitchell on the war on drugs, specifically laws on money laundering, and the cost of laws and regulations which don’t achieve their […]
If drugs were legalized, where would the cops and Big Pharma get the billions of dollars they get now?
Both would lose out big time, and they know it.
Why else would drug companies be spending big bucks to try to stop states from legalizing pot?
And remember that the people lose more wealth from government forfeiture than from regular crimes.
Legalizing drugs only makes it available to those who use it every day anyway. The professionals among us still have company policies that prohibit its use while employed. Ask the average tire shop worker, steel worker, refinery worker, etc. It does not release them to suddenly become wild party animals. They would lose their jobs on the next random drug test. And in these times, a job is a wonderful thing to have. You see, companies could be held liable for not preventing us from being flown by a drug-enhanced pilot, or have a lug nut left off the wheel, or have our electrical circuits wired backwards, or a myriad of other things. So, they ensure their employees are of sound mind when working on your behalf. They do that through a drug-free working policy.
And as for Marijuana- it is silly. Less harmful than alcohol, and the buyer must sit in the living room of a “dealer” to purchase it. Said dealer has no qualms about introducing him to other more harmful drugs, as both are already breaking the law. Yes, that is what makes it a gateway drug- dark rooms and the inability to say no.
Hard to admit, or accept, but the War on Drugs is a collusive “crony” money making and spending activity of special interest groups and governments costing millions of lives and billions of wasteful public expenditures.
Socially motivated interests assume that substantial benefits are gained, but the record suggests that they are being fooled, deluded by their own errors and beliefs. True believers in the evils of drugs are actually enriching those elements in society that disregard its prohibitions, while funding ineffectual, costly, and corrupting public enforcement efforts. The cost of the War on Drugs has actually ballooned beyond reason, and stimulated, perversely, the growth of its underground economy, amplifying the demand for drugs. Net, net, it has cost lives, and corrupted governments, while continuing to fail in its pursuit. Einstein is said to have defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” We need to stop being cuckoo.
Take a repetitive error – death via overdose. Many, if not most, deaths from illegal drugs, come from the excessive strength of the drugs induced by the rush by addicts to satisfy the urge to indulge, amplified by untimely denial. It is also due to the delay in accessing remedies at the time of overdose. To err repeatedly by prohibiting legal access to precise dosages, and remedial treatment in instances of overdose, is insane.
Suppose recreational drugs were accessible without prescription. What would could one expect?
1. Deaths from drug overdoses would diminish. The strength and quality of recreational drugs would become known, fostering precise indulgence. The treatment of users overdosing would improve as protocols for treatment became known, accessible, and used, by the drug indulgent community.
2. The cost of drugs would diminish as competition between drug producers increased. The income of addicts would be begin to shift toward more socially acceptable consumption.
3. Potential tax revenues on the sale of drugs could facilitate and support, socially desirable programs. Education on the risks associated with improper use of drugs could be pursued more aggressively, and treatment for drug overuse could be funded. Revenues surplus to the needs of addicts could serve other socially desired public programs, such as basic education, and public safety. Actually, surpluses from the sale of other addictive products, such as cigarettes and alcohol are already.
4. The domestic production of drugs, previously imported, would increase, resulting in economic growth and employment. The Colorado experience with legalizing marijuana is instructive.
5. Expenditures for drug enforcement by police could be redirected to more pressing demands for public safety, such as assaults, robberies, domestic violence, and community services.
And internationally?
1. Our balance of trade could improve by over $5.O billion, a minimal amount of present day illegal drug imports.
2. Our national security expenditures in enforcing the prohibition could also drop by another and estimated $5.0 billion.
3. The revenues of Afghan, Bolivian, Colombian, and and other nations producing, processing, and exporting habit forming drugs would take a major economic hit. Some countries might benefit from reducing expenditures for drug interdiction (spraying of illegal poppies/coca, armed intervention against production and supply routes, and corrupt crony political practices). Budgets could be redirected to productive activity (credit to agriculture, small businesses, primary education, public health, sanitation, etc.). Likewise, the drug industry in intermediary countries involved in smuggling, would also lose, or gain, as resources are redirected.
4. To the extent that the War on Drugs has interjected the U.S. into the national policies of other countries, its diminution would substantially remove the identification of Americans as a party participating in the errors of governance by aided nations.
But does that mean a surrender to the evils of drug abuse? Absolutely not. It means, however, the reliance on, and accepting the consequences of, individual choice, relying on education, social pressures, and the forces of nature, to address problems of human misbehavior.
Jaime L. Manzano
7904 Park Overlook Drive
Bethesda, MD 20817
301 365 4781