Lest anyone be fooled about the ultimate aim of the pot legalization movement, this article featured on SL&P should clear it up. The idea is that legalizing pot is where we should start, but legalizing everything -- meth, heroin, crack, all of it -- is where we should end up.
We are told that the way to "win" the war on drugs is complete and unconditional surrender. One might think that using language in that upside-down way reveals that the movement has been smoking............something.
Could anyone doubt that full drug legalization will mean increased drug use? I mean, what else happens when we lower the costs and risks of using X? We get more of X. And what will happen when we get more consumption of meth, heroin and all the rest? We'll get more addiction and more death.
Why would anyone want that?
Part of the answer is that a segment of the legalization movement wants it in the name of "personal liberty." That is a principled position, but, for my money (and that of a huge majority of the public), the price is too high. But there's a more sinister aspect to this, as well: Part of the legalize-everything movement simply wants a weaker America, knowing that a more-drug consuming America will be exactly that.
To paraphrase: "what else happens when we lower the costs and risks of using alcohol? We get more ... addiction and more death."
"what else happens when we lower the costs and risks of using prescription drugs? We get more ... addiction and more death."
"what else happens when we lower the costs and risks of using tobacco? We get more ... addiction and more death."
"what else happens when we lower the costs and risks of using transfat? We get more ... addiction and more death."
"what else happens when we lower the costs and risks of using refined sugar? We get more ... addiction and more death."
"what else happens when we lower the costs and risks of using firearm? We get more ... use of firearm and more death."
"what else happens when we lower the costs and risks of using the internet? We get more ... addiction and more mean things done using the internet."
MOST IMPORTANT PARAPHRASE:
"Lest anyone be fooled about the ultimate aim of the smartest and most vocal advocates among the establishment/movement right-wingers, this commentary by Bill Otis should clear it up: they will talk and talk about 'personal liberty' and limited government until THEY decide 'the price is too high' at which point they embrace big federal government to pick winners and losers. And there is a more sinister aspect to this, as well: Part of the right-wing movement simply wants everyone to believe that we really cannot trust anyone but them with 'personal liberty,' so we ought to keeping trying to trick people with liberty talk but still use big federal government to prevent others from being free from the nanny state (which they need because they did not have the good parents we had who taught us the right way to use freedom)."
I always love when the "mask drops" on those who claim to be about freedom and limited government.
1. Usually when you put words in my mouth you show a tad more restraint. So I guess a drug discussion stimulates both liberty (after a fashion) and license (after a different and bigger fashion).
2. It's true that when you write the entire script, you can get the play to come out as you want. No disagreement there!
3. Some things should be unregulated; some lightly regulated; and others heavily regulated (including with criminal penalties). I will be happy to let readers decide for themselves where the Internet, sugary drinks, and heroin injections fit into that picture.
4. Often you say you want nuance and refinement, but then, in a response like this, you use sprawling terms like "freedom" versus "big government" to answer questions about very different substances with very different pharmacological effects, and for which considerably more detail and specific inquiry are needed yet conspicuously omitted.
5. The idea that there is too high a price for the exercise of even a CONSTITUTIONAL right (which would not include getting blasted) hardly started with me. Didn't someone say that allowing the "free speech" of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is too high a price to pay for the First Amendment? Indeed so high a price that the guy who yells it can be prosecuted? Were those people right-wing freaks?
6. If your legalize-everything idea were so obvious, why is it doing so poorly even after 40 years of this supposedly oppressive drug war? Why is it that, in the graph I linked, only a miniscule part of the public wants hard drugs legalized, while 80% to 90% oppose it?
As to the drug war, it is not "right wingers" but the huge majority of the American people who have decided that the price of suppressing drug traffiicking, with criminal penalties when needed, is a price they're willing to pay. If the Constitution disallowed such a decision, that would be one thing. But it does not (see Raich, Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club).
Your beef is not me and some supposed right wing/Puritan cabal. It's with the electorate. Is the druggie movement/academia/Reason Magazine THAT MUCH smarter and more patriotic than the rest of us?
The unsaid aspect of this is that there are also people who believe (rightly or wrongly) that there is plenty of $$$ to be made from legalizing drugs.
Bill, I am not suggesting anyone is smarter or more patriotic than you or anyone else. Nor am I trying to put words in your mouth or avoid nuance. Rather, I am simply trying to highlight, yet again, that you are a big government conservative who is willing/eager to have the federal government control individuals through the use of federal criminal laws if/whenever you think "the price is too high" to leave individuals alone.
Please understand, because I do think all these issues need to be considered in a nuanced way, I am not seeking to make in this space the "legalize everything" argument (though I will note that such an argument has been previously made by right-wing opinion leaders ranging from William Buckley to Milton Friedman to Donald Trump whom I doubt really want "a weaker America"). Also, to their credit, GOP-appointed Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor and Thomas thought Raich was wrongly decided (as do I).
What my goal in my comment was, Bill, was just to showcase again your (and the American public's) eagerness to embrace broad use of federal power because it seems you favor big federal government having the power to do whatever it wants when whomever in charge decides the "price" of government leaving individuals alone "is too high." This does not make you unpatriotic, it just makes you an integral member of the inside-the-Beltway cabal that is not interested in limiting what the federal government can and will do with taxpayer monies.
I know you do not like when I call you a big government conservative, but when the shoe fits...
I doubt too many readers here give a hoot whether I am correctly characterized as a big government person, or not.
I am not the problem.
Heroin is the problem.
Meth is the problem.
Crack is the problem.
Legalization will remove a barrier to their availability and thus increase their use.
What is the case that the increased use of these things is good for America?
Actually, Bill, the way you frame these questions is the problem because it assumes that the federal government ought to have broad power to criminalize any and everything that federal officials think "is good for America." And it is that framing that empowers the inside-the-Beltway cabal to believe it can and should do whatever it wants despite the Constitution's efforts to limit federal powers.
The case for undoing the federal CSA step-by-step is to do what GOP leaders often say they want to do: get the feds out of the way so states can handle issues as they see fit at the state level. We should start by descheduling marijuana and carefully study the impact of that decision to get the feds out of a form of prohibition that the majority of states view as deeply misguided. If that goes well, we can and should then think about whether to move on to other drugs.
I know other folks embrace a more radical agenda of full legalization right away, but I am not confident that this is a wise approach, procedurally or substantively. I want an incremental approach that starts with marijuana reform and uses evidence-based metric to see if we are successful there in shrinking the size of government without the "price being too high." If that proves effective, on to the next arena of federal government waste and over-reach.
I would think true conservatives would embrace this approach to cutting down the size and cost of the federal government. And many do, but others share your view that the price of personal liberty and trusting states and individuals to be free of federal control is just too costly. And I am sure that is the kind of thinking the next Clinton or Trump Administration is likely to employ in lots of settings where they think they just know better.
1. This is what I see happening over and over: Instead of answering the question, you criticize it.
I'll try again, without any reference to the feds: What is the case that the increased use of meth, heroin and crack is good for America?
2. (a) You write: "[T]he way you frame these questions is the problem because it assumes that the federal government ought to have broad power to criminalize any and everything that federal officials think 'is good for America.'"
It makes no such assumption, and your claiming that it does is exactly the sort of distortion of a poster's position that caused Kent to close a thread when you did the same thing with him.
Do you think maybe the problem he saw is real?
(b) How are you getting from the fact that I (and the President, Supreme Court and Congress) think the feds ought to have power to criminalize hard drugs to the proposition that they should have the exponentially broader power, as you put it, "to criminalize any and everything that federal officials think 'is [not?] good for America."
It's getting to be a standard tactic to exaggerate to the point of absurdity something I will say (or Kent will say). This is done in part to be annoying, and in part to misrepresent -- and avoid answering -- what we actually said.
"The case for undoing the federal CSA step-by-step is to do what GOP leaders often say they want to do: get the feds out of the way so states can handle issues as they see fit at the state level."
That is an obvious evasion of the question. Every state has its own laws criminalizing hard drugs There is no movement (outside the extreme fringe) to undo such laws, nor any realistic prospect that any such undoing will occur. With that as the state of play, getting the feds out of the business simply means that people in the hard drug business will become state prisoners instead of federal ones.
But the article you featured is pushing FULL legalization, not legalization is just one of fifty-one jurisdictions.
Finally, I'll ask once again: Do you disagree that de-criminalization will decrease the costs and risks of acquiring heroin; that more will be acquired; that when more is acquired, more will be used; and that when more is used, we'll have more addiction and more death?
Douglas,
Being that you are a small government libertarian (cough cough) and against Federal intrusion, please give me a direct answer to the following questions.
Are you for or against the Federal government funding state universities?
Will you state on your blog and in a public statement to the Ohio State University administration that it should turn down the the hundreds of millions ($478 million in FY2014) it receives every year? http://research.osu.edu/osu-research/profile/
Or that they should turn down the additional hundreds of millions the university receives in student loans and Pell grants?
The reason I ask is because your "big government conservatives" rant is a debate tactic, not a heartfelt and sincere position.
And let's not pretend the comparison is equal. Things like law enforcement, the military, etc. ARE legitimate core functions of the Federal government. Lining the pockets of you and your colleagues is not.
Tarls --
Correct.
Note what's happening here. The debate becomes personalized (it's not about heroin, it's about whether I'm really a conservative). It becomes diverted to a topic legalizers would rather talk about, since they don't want to talk about the suffering that accompanies more use of heroin. It becomes distorted by inflating the other side's statements, requiring the opponent to spend time reminding people of what the topic actually is.
And then there is, as you point out, the hypocrisy problem.
Libertarianism is starting to give self-righteousness a bad name. For at least 40 years, all three branches of government and, overwhelmingly, the American people, have regarded the fight against dangerous drugs as a legitimate subject of criminal law. But libertarianism simply waves its Imperial Hand, and dismisses the huge consensus against it as the product of Big Government halfwits and thugs.
Sorry, Bill, if you find my exploration of the implications of your comments to be an exaggeration. It is the way I try to better understand the principles that drive your thinking and those of others.
Importantly, Bill and Tarls, I try to avoid use offensive and derogatory terminology like "halfwits" or "thugs" and I do I assert you do not really believe what you say and are only interested in lining your pockets. Rather, I take what you say and explore its implications and meanings. You may not like what I perceive to be the implications of what you say, but I seek to be respectful of your positions and what you say is important. It would be nice if you could be similarly courteous.
As for your substantive questions questions, I am not sure if decriminalization of hard drugs would be certain to produce more addiction and death. I perceive from various reports that this has not been the consequence in Portugal, but the US is obviously a much different nation. I find this concern of yours genuine, but I would like to see when experiments with marijuana legalization take us and then reasses. And so forth. And in doing so, a commitment to personal freedom and to trusting individuals more than government serve as my guideline principle.
And Tarls, I do believe federal dollars have been poorly and excessively spent on higher education (and on other education) in the United States in recent decades. I cannot address specific decisions by Ohio State administrators to take federal dollars (I do not know all the details and do not think law school feed too much from this trough), but I do think misguided federal involvement/subsidization of too much unfocused education has contributed to a nationwide education bubble of many varieties that has produced excessive student debt to fatten the pocketbooks of too many in the "education business." It is hard for me to fault my employers for taking money available when trying to compete within a system in which everyone chases these dollars, but I am quite troubled by how those inside the Beltway can use purse strings to control how states structure efforts to educate its own citizens.
That said, Tarls, I think a great nation helps educate its citizens concerning their civil duties and rights. But the fact that civics are not central to all of our public education systems --- and in particular the importance of freedom and of participating in self-government --- is another reason I find modern education spending to be deeply problematic.
Doug --
-- "Sorry, Bill, if you find my exploration of the implications of your comments to be an exaggeration."
It has nothing to do with what I "find" to be "an exaggeration." The difficulty is attributing to me absurd things I didn't say and don't believe. Such as your comment that, "[T]he way you frame these questions is the problem because it assumes that the federal government ought to have broad power to criminalize any and everything that federal officials think 'is good for America.'"
The problem is not just that this is a burlesque of what I think. The problem is that you KNOW it is a burlesque of what I think.
I have asked before and will ask again: When you want to state my position, QUOTE IT. I am not aware of any reason that cannot be done.
-- I never called libertarians, you or any others, halfwits or thugs. Never. What I said is that their breezy rejection of the huge consensus in this country against legalizing hard drugs reveals them to dismiss dissenters like TalsQtr and me as halfwits or thugs.
I don't know how you managed to turn that on its head.
-- It is a matter of the most basic economics that, when we lower the costs and risks of doing X, more of X gets done. Indeed, if I am recalling correctly, the article you feature in your SLP entry ADMITS that more hard drugs will get done, but argues that the supposed "benefits" will outweigh the harms.
When the United States does more hard drugs, we are going to have more addiction and death. Indeed, even with the present efforts, heroin use and the accompanying shocking rise in overdoes deaths is bad enough. The idea that now is the time to go easier on heroin dealers is, in today's world, beyond bizarre. It is also one of the main reasons the SRCA is flaming out. Reality takes a toll.
-- I have never asserted that you "do not really believe what you say and are only interested in lining your pockets."
The problem is the opposite: You, a smart and highly educated man, DO believe what you say, except when burlesquing my positions, and accept a (relatively) paltry salary compared to what you could make if you worked at, e.g., Jones Day, and had to deal with the real world instead of the (very one-sided) faculty lounge world.
Doug --
A few more thoughts.
-- You talk about "the Constitution's efforts to limit federal power."
So is the CSA unconstitutional? Yes? No? What case says that?
The answer is no case. This lame mantra has been going on for 40 years. At some point, it's time to give the libertarian pipe dream a decent burial. It has about the same claim on reality as the Klan's continuing to complain about Brown v. Board.
-- "The case for undoing the federal CSA step-by-step is to do what GOP leaders often say they want to do: get the feds out of the way so states can handle issues as they see fit at the state level."
The feds are not "in the way." They have concurrent, not exclusive, jurisdiction. And my experience was that that the states looked to the feds for cooperation and help; they did not look on the feds as a hindrance.
Do you have contrary evidence?
-- "I want an incremental approach that starts with marijuana reform and uses evidence-based metric to see if we are successful there in shrinking the size of government without the 'price being too high.' If that proves effective, on to the next arena of federal government waste and over-reach...I would think true conservatives would embrace this approach to cutting down the size and cost of the federal government."
Might I ask why you think of yourself as the arbiter of what "true conservatives" want? Are you a conservative? True or otherwise? Is the OSU law faculty chock full of conservatives holding forth on what other conservatives want?
If I recall correctly, your main "conservative" hero, Rand Paul, flamed out so early people can barely remember he was a candidate. How is it that conservative voters see drugs so differently from how Sen. Paul does?
-- It's an odd idea for a law professor, of all things, to have that enforcing a statute that's been upheld uniformly for four decades amounts to "waste and over-reach."
It's time to quit blaming prosecutors and start blaming quick-buck artists who thrive off other people's misery.
Your very last line here, Bill, showcases that you are the king of burlesque in this and other settings. (Great term by the way.). I do not blame modern prosecutors for doing their job and believing it is their responsibility to go after drug dealers any more than I would blame Mabel Walker Willibrandt for taking alcohol Prohibition seriously and going after bootleggers. Rather, I am concerned about an ever creeping big government philosophy which approaches any and every misery as a problem to be "solved" by government programming and does so without really having the true consent of the people.
I do think some applications of the CSA are unconstitutional --- put most simply, I think Raich was decided incorrectly. And my reference to "true conservative" was a product of the votes by Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas in dissent in Raich. I am sorry if I do not have authority to articulate a view on what it means to be a conservative, and the surprising election success of Donald Trump among GOP voters perhaps is the best proof nobody really knows what a true conservative is these days. I will try to avoid using that term, though I would like to understand what term you think would be best for describing those who favor a smaller federal government and more power in the hands of states and individuals.
You are right that, in modern times, states look to the Feds for help on various fronts, but that seems to me largely a product of the fact that the Feds can print money and carry massive debt while states have to balance their budgets. I am curious what approach you think leads to more responsible governing and use of taxpayer resource? I suppose given my concerns about federal misuse of dollars, I should be rooting for GOP front runner Trump who promises to get Mexico to pay for more big government programming.
I sincerely apologize for any offense or misrepresentation when I explore the implications of your affinity for using big government power to deal with the problems of drug. I just see so many parallels to the justifications for alcohol Prohibition --- which, notably, was at least done via constitutional amendment --- and I believe the combination of the income tax and Prohibition amendment to our constitution provided the economic and philosophical justifications for massive problematic growth of the federal government over the last century.
Douglas stated: "And Tarls, I do believe federal dollars have been poorly and excessively spent on higher education (and on other education) in the United States in recent decades."
That is not what I asked.
You stated: " I cannot address specific decisions by Ohio State administrators to take federal dollars (I do not know all the details and do not think law school feed too much from this trough), but I do think misguided federal involvement/subsidization of too much unfocused education has contributed to a nationwide education bubble of many varieties that has produced excessive student debt to fatten the pocketbooks of too many in the "education business." It is hard for me to fault my employers for taking money available when trying to compete within a system in which everyone chases these dollars, but I am quite troubled by how those inside the Beltway can use purse strings to control how states structure efforts to educate its own citizens."
Of course you "can't fault" them. It pays the salaries of you and your colleagues.
Your response highlights my point. For all of the talk about about "big government conservatives" supporting a system that is a core function of the Federal government, you will not condemn in the same way the ridiculous amount of money spent in K-12 public education and higher education, which are not core functions of the Federal government.
The difference in the choice of words depending on the topic is stark.
Libertarianism is a debating tactic for you.
You stated: "That said, Tarls, I think a great nation helps educate its citizens concerning their civil duties and rights. But the fact that civics are not central to all of our public education systems --- and in particular the importance of freedom and of participating in self-government --- is another reason I find modern education spending to be deeply problematic."
Ah, yes, "problematic." It is quite more than that.
-- "Your very last line here, Bill, showcases that you are the king of burlesque in this and other settings. (Great term by the way.)."
Actually, my last line does not even purport to be about what you've said. It's about what you SHOULD say but won't. For you, the blame is never with the drug pusher. It's always with the American people, who overwhelmingly insist on keeping hard drugs illegal.
I guess they're stupid, yes?
-- "I do not blame modern prosecutors for doing their job and believing it is their responsibility to go after drug dealers any more than I would blame Mabel Walker Willibrandt for taking alcohol Prohibition seriously and going after bootleggers."
Translation: Prosecutors are doing the work of a public that's just as stupid and retrograde as Prohibition.
Far out.
Of course the difference is that those wanting legal alcohol WON their argument with the electorate, while those wanting legal heroin have lost it massively for four straight decades.
Does this fact ever cause you to ponder whether there might be something wrong with the argument rather than with the electorate?
Oh, and it's not the inside-the-Beltway crowd. No state anywhere has even proposed legalization of hard drugs. I guess the Beltway must have moved to Oklahoma or something.
"Rather, I am concerned about an ever creeping big government philosophy which approaches any and every misery as a problem to be "solved" by government programming and does so without really having the true consent of the people."
First, when criminalization of hard drugs has lasted as long as it has through administrations liberal and conservative, and Congresses liberal and conservative, it's the libertarian ideologues who want to impose their ideas on the people, not the other way around.
Second, how many times have I said here that culture is more powerful than law, and that the true answer to the country's problems lies in turning around its libertine, anything-goes, decaying culture more than in doing ANYTHING about law?
Did you miss those? I couldn't have said it more than three dozen times.
Anyway, I could write a lot more, but I need to pack up my Hawaii house until next season. Since you know well that, while I support drug prosecutions, I do not support what you call Big Government, I'd appreciate it if you put that one to rest. As Kent and I have both started to do recently, we are going to clean up the comments section of knowingly incorrect and diversionary stuff.