I've written before that although I'm generally sympathetic to drug legalization on civil liberties grounds, I'm skeptical that such a huge change would actually be beneficial to individuals or society as a whole. One of the reasons why I'm unsure is that I can see the effect that legal drugs -- such as cigarettes and alcohol -- have on people I know, and I can see the costs they impose on society in general.
I like the idea that everyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, but in most cases it's impossible to prevent hurting others, due to a confluence of harmful choices. For example, a person who smokes and also votes for public health care is trying to pass along the cost of smoking to me and other non-smokers. These two choices combined make for a very bad policy that restricts more liberty than either one would alone -- each alone may, in fact, be arguably good. (Not that I'm a fan of socialized medicine, but if everyone took care of their health and didn't engage in harmful activities, it could work.)
So when it comes to cases like this woman being sent to jail for smoking around her kids, I'm not very sympathetic. Even though it appears that the legal rationale for jailing her is that she's in violation of a custody agreement (she agreed not to smoke around her kids), the judge "upheld the order in January, citing medical evidence of the effects of secondhand smoke on children". Medical evidence would be unnecessary if the custody agreement were as well-defined as the article makes it sound. (Or maybe the judge is just throwing it in for free.)
The unintended externalities that could be caused by drug legalization are an example of the potential dangers of idealistic libertarianism (CC). I'd like to move in that direction -- from where we are now -- but I'm wary of moving too far, too quickly.
(This post feels like it's rambling, so I'm going to stop here.)
I disagree that smokers who support socialized medicine are attempting to impose special costs on you. Smokers get certain illnesses due to their habits that might have been avoided if they didn't smoke, but by dying early, they avoid other illnesses that would have also cost taxpayers money. Overall, smokers are a bargain, as they retire at the same age as everyone else, but die sooner. Plus they pay all those sin taxes on top of it.
As to phony dangers of secondhand smoke, give me a break. The last thing we need is more do-gooder judges breaking secondhand wind.
X: Interesting thought on smokers dying sooner and therefore being cheaper... but I'd like to see some numbers. You may be right, but I know smokers who have died long, expensive deaths from lung cancer, and cost much more than any normal old person.
As for the dangers of secondhand smoke, who says that's the only externality? It also smells bad, and makes my clothes stink, it can definitely give people headaches, set off allergies, and so forth.
I'd be interested in seeing numbers, too. The trouble is, no one ever cites honest numbers, only the ones aimed at producing the best damages. Individual anecdotes are useless. One of my grandfathers smoked like a chimney, while the other died of cancer. The smoker lived much longer, and eventually died of a condition unrelated to smoking. Both required their share of expensive treatment at the end, as does anyone else who dies of old age or disease, vs. suddenly by accident, suicide, murder, etc. I'm not sure why you assume a smoking related death will generally be more expensive or protracted than the death that would have inevitably come a decade later if the smoker hadn't taken up that habit. I don't, and the burden of proof is on the person who says it is. The only established, incontrovertible fact is that first-hand smoke speeds up the process considerably.
As to externalities, one can only "set off allergies" of those who are allergic. I doubt that these kids are, but if they are, the judge is an even bigger idiot than I thought. I mean, why on earth would he rely on junk science about secondhand smoke, if he had real science at his disposal?
Smelling bad, stinky clothes, etc. are also "externalities" in some sense, but as offenses go, they are nickel and dime stuff. No one goes to jail for farting in someone else's general direction. Why should secondhand smoke be treated any differently?
X: I bet if someone constantly farted all over other people and wouldn't stop he could be cited as a public nuisance.
Perhaps so. Then again, if enough people wanted to eat dinner at restaurants that allowed patrons to fart at will, no one would think of passing (no pun intended) a law against it.
Drugs are sort of like guns...once they've been discovered, it's pretty much impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. Making them illegal isn't going to make them dissapear. Ignoring libertarian arguments, the only question is whether making them illegal prevents enough of the negative consequences inherent in the use of the drugs to make up for all of the many troubles inherent in making them illegal. I think for alcohol, that question was answered, and I certainly don't think marijuana or tobacco are worth being illegal either. Now when it comes to hard drugs like cocaine, I don't really know the answer, but even then my leaning would be towards no. Then again, I don't really like the idea of becoming one of those countries that's handing out needles to the druggies, either. I say if they want to be stupid and pass diseases around themselves, that's their problem.
R: I'm pretty much in the same boat as you, but it's important to realize that people don't choose to use hard drugs. They choose to try hard drugs, but once they're hooked they can't help but continue (almost). I've seen friends' lives destroyed by the stuff, and it's sad, and if they could have had someone stop them they would have wanted it. I agree that the crime surrounding hard drugs is bad, but I'm not convinced that legalization wouldn't lead to a worse situation of mass addiction, as is seen in other parts of the world. (Data?)
The thing of it is... people wouldn't use drugs if they didn't work.
Legalization of drugs is not something to be done all-at-once, but the emphasis should be on preventing addiction instead of trying to tighten the belt. Laws and government aren't going to keep people from using something that works so well... which makes the status quo something that's ultimately self-defeating.
If the government's "war on drugs" is something that's never going to be won... which drugs' effectiveness is sure to prove... there's a decision to be made: How much time, money, and effort should the government and law enforcement expend to penalize and criminalize drug use when the end result is never a victory and almost always a prison and legal system clogged with non-violent and otherwise law-abiding drug users?
We don't have to go full-steam-ahead and legalize everything.... but we've got to come to our senses about certain things... especially marijuana. I don't smoke it, but I'm baffled about why it remains illegal.
I bet if someone constantly farted all over other people and wouldn't stop he could be cited as a public nuisance.
See this story. (Hat tip: Gweilo Diaries)
Mark, I agree with some of your points. Especially the part about people not taking drugs if they didn't work.
The oddity I see with this "war on drugs" is that it doesn't seem to really be making a dent where it counts- unless your counting the houses, cars, and money flowing into the governments coffers.
JP: You're assuming that it's not making a dent, but there's no way to know how bad the drug addiction rate would be without the WoD. Libertarians don't think it matters, and that the rate wouldn't be much different, but I think it does matter and I'm not at all sure that the rate wouldn't skyrocket. One only has to look at countries with effectively no drug law enforcement to see how bad the situation can get. I'm doing some research into it at the moment, and I'll post more when I'm ready.
Legalization would bring down the costs of the "hard" drugs, thereby making them accessible to almost everyone, not just rich suburban moms and spoiled kids and rock stars. As it is now, not everyone has the extra couple hundred bucks here and there to waste on that kind of recreation. If it were cheaper, of course curiosity would get the better of us and drug usage would skyrocket.
Lowered costs and legalization would probably reduce the violence that usually goes along with drugs... as there wouldn't be so much money at stake.
Curiosity and kids trying drugs isn't going to go away... regardless of cost or whether they're legal or not.
I think "hard" drug use (cocaine, crack, heroin, etc.) is declining overall... but still thrives in certain environments and situations. I think education about the mental and physical side-effects of hard drugs is sinking in across "Suburban" America.... but "Inner-City" America is still too wrapped up in cartels of dealers, customers, and suppliers.... all of whom need each other... and all of whom perpetuate the vicious cycle. Police can break up a gang or two here and there... or catch a few dealers... even if no ancillary violence is involved... but it's not really solving the problem.
MW: You're right. I did make the assumption. Having come out of that lifestyle, I have a good idea how it works and spreads. It is only my opinion, but I never saw any evidence of the effect of this WoD.
On a totally different vein of thought (and highly speculative) the WoD could be quite an effective tool for eliminating too much competition.
Oooh. spurred on my own mind, here. I mean, think about what I just said (up there ^).
This war on drugs:
-Creates jobs
-Generates revenue.
-Thins out supplier competition
-Keeping prices higher
-Naturally kills off some of the players
-Provides great news footage when we make a big "seizure"
-Would do none of those things if it were won.
I may see things a little darkly, but then again- corrupt is how things seem to get almost of their own accord.
One only has to look at countries with effectively no drug law enforcement to see how bad the situation can get.
If you're thinking of The Netherlands or some other Euro countries with lax drug laws or drug law enforcement, note that they also have extensive social welfare programs.
For a snapshot of a nation with no drug laws and little drug problem, look at ourselves. The US had no national and few state laws against drug use until the early 1900s. Heroin, morphene, opium, and cocaine were available back then, but the US did not have a national epidemic. I attribute this to most people being smart enough to look around them and see the people who were unable to function because of their drug use and who died of it in short order. Overdose, exposure, or starvation, makes no difference -- "died of drugs" is still dead.
Nowadays, of course, the US, and The Netherlands and other progressive nations, provides lots of money and services so the non-productive can still live long, relatively comfortable lives. Why not try drugs? Why not get hooked? It's not like you have to stay functional enough to support yourself.
Yet another example of unintended consequences -- surely LBJ didn't intend his Great Society programs to facilitate drug addiction, just as he surely didn't intend them to facilitate family break-up.
Why you gotta knock the inner-city, Mark? Are you the optimistic mayor of some idyllic suburb who's watched too many movies? Hard drugs are alive and well in the suburbs. And the inner-city, the gangs etc, overwhelmingly don't use the drugs they deal. And the dealers and cartels certainly don't give each other money.. Users perpetuate the problem. Oh well, maybe you were just joking.
The point is, hard drugs are entirely different from cigarettes. Hard drugs are quick and, well, hard; you could go fifty years or five minutes then have your overdose, and that's when the hospital/system first sees you. The illnesses resulting from smoking are more long and drawn out and the system sees you over a long, expensive period of time. Most people doing drugs do it without you knowing for a long time, if you ever find out at all. The other point is, since the possible death is likely a quick one, why shouldn't people be allowed the right to get f'ed up on their own dime?
Michelle: "Why you gotta knock the inner-city, Mark? Are you the optimistic mayor of some idyllic suburb who's watched too many movies? Hard drugs are alive and well in the suburbs. And the inner-city, the gangs etc, overwhelmingly don't use the drugs they deal. And the dealers and cartels certainly don't give each other money.. Users perpetuate the problem. Oh well, maybe you were just joking."
No, I'm no mayor of any town.. idyllic or otherwise. What I was speaking of is entirely general... some cities aren't going to fit and others are.
Smokers (tobacco) and drinkers pay a large amount of tax to support their habbit. Even in countries with public health care, they make a net contribution.
If drugs were legal, they too would be taxed.
i've long thought that of all the drugs to be legal, alcohol and nicotine are the worst. Nicotine is nightmarishly addictive (it's comparable to cocaine in several ways) and it doesn't even get you that high. Alcohol makes people violent -- how many fights would you envisage in a cafe after an evening drinking marajuana tea. There might be a bit of a rush when the pizza arrives, but it wouldn't come to blows.