Another War to End

Often when grilling steaks on an evening in the summer, I enjoy a warm and pleasant feeling after ingesting a small amount of the potent, dangerous, and sometimes fatal drug ethyl alcohol in the form of Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey or something similar. I do this openly and completely without fear of the police (as I am somewhat over  the legal drinking age).  At the same time in the same city, others - say a black man with cocaine, a redneck with meth, and even a goofy college kid with marijuana -   would enjoy their drugs only at the risk of  running afoul of the authorities and suffering unpleasant penalties. I can buy my drug  reasonably priced (except for taxes) and legally -  in great variety, neatly and clearly labeled, with purity certified by the United States government – all over town at clean and safe establishments run by honest business people. They have to run the risk of purchasing theirs, generally at exorbitant prices and sometimes harmfully adulterated, from often dangerous lowlifes in frequently disreputable and unsafe surroundings. Both my ethyl alcohol and their illegal favorites can do harm to those who use them, as numerous case histories confirm.  Yet mine is not prohibited, and theirs are.

Of course there was a time when mine was illegal in the United States. Prohibition of alcohol was one of the major political causes of self-styled reformers in  the so-called progressive era of American politics in the first twenty or so years of the 20^th Century, and a  constitutional amendment to  require it was ratified during the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Production and consumption of beverages containing ethyl alcohol were illegal for a little over a dozen years.  The result was a disaster which led to increased corruption of officials, more disrespect for law, and the growth of criminal organizations into larger scale enterprises.

Just as alcohol was once illegal, drugs which now are banned once were permitted. Marijuana, opiates, and cocaine were legally available at the turn of the 20^th Century. A series of gradual steps starting around the time of World War I led to their use being fully outlawed by the 1930’s. There are several hypotheses for why this happened. Some people believe it was an attempt to give governments more power over the lower class blacks, Mexicans, and Chinese who were supposed to be especially likely to use those drugs. Others see a simple case of officials who by various ways had gotten a living out of alcohol prohibition wanting something else to be prohibited. Still others point to real or exaggerated concerns relating to public health.

The questions we should be asking today are first whether any sort of prohibition is right in a free society, and second whether the prohibition of the present day works any better than the prohibition of alcohol did in the past.  Most  libertarians answer no to the first question. We believe people  own their lives and bodies, and mentally competent adults can ingest what they want without obtaining others’  approval or permission, subject only to their not directly endangering others by such things as driving under the influence.  The second question is thus unimportant for us in terms of forming our opinions on the issue of prohibition. We would not favor even effective prohibition, because of our opinion that regulating such things is not the proper business of government.

 However, the second question can be very important for those who do not share these beliefs on individual rights and the proper limits of government, and I think the evidence suggests  the answer to that second question is no. We clearly have corruption of officials, disrespect for the law, and growth of criminal organizations similar to that which resulted from prohibiting alcohol.  The cost of trying to enforce drug prohibition laws is staggering, and yet millions of people continue to obtain and use the drugs.  The cost  should concern both those who would like  the government to spend less and those who would like to get the government to spend money on other things. The lack of success should concern people wanting to require governments to justify spending with results. The pervasive bribing and suborning of law enforcement officials should concern people worried about corruption in government. The power and reach of the Mexican drug selling cartels and other criminal organizations in the drug trade should concern people worried about crime and the safety of the public.  The damage and suffering caused by sending non-violent prohibition lawbreakers to prison should concern people interested in treating  their fellow citizens with decency, fairness, and appropriate compassion.  The way a claimed need to enforce drug prohibition laws has been used as a foot in the door, establishing precedent or rationale for all sorts of invasions of people’s privacy and violation of their rights by officials in cases having nothing to do with drugs should concern those wishing to protect civil liberties.  A strong case can be made that  the collateral damage to society from drug prohibition has been worse than that from alcohol prohibition, while the prohibition has been ineffective in terms of reaching its stated objectives. People of various political beliefs should consider whether this is another war it is time to end.