Why Legalize Drugs?

26

When was the last time you were shot at by the Budweiser truck driver?

America, the “land of the free”, also happens to be the home of the largest incarceration rate in world.  Over a quarter of those imprisoned are serving time for non-violent “drug crimes”.  The courts are known to hit minorities harder with longer prison sentences meanwhile so many resources are spent on enforcing “cleanliness’ that few are left for dealing with actual “real crimes”.

If a crime has no victim should it be a crime?  Such a crime would seem to be more an infringement on liberty than an actual crime.  Such a law creating such a crime would seem unfit to exist.

Imagine for one second that you’re living in a land with no state.  You catch a “hot tip” that your neighbor has in her possession narcotics that you personally do not approve of.  Would you feel morally obligated or even morally justified to go to her house, kidnap her, bring her back to your house and imprison her in your basement for a period of time to “get clean” and learn your “morality”?  No?  Then why hire government thugs to do it?

If the true intention of prohibition is to decrease drug use, prohibition is no less than an obvious failure.  Name one drug where usage hasn’t increased more than 10 fold since prohibition.  If it weren’t for drug prohibition increasing the costs of drugs like cocaine and heroin, crystal meth probably wouldn’t even exist.

Prohibition is the cause of the violence.  If a drunk needs his fix he can merely bum a couple bucks and go buy a 40 oz.   Prohibition drives costs up while putting profits in the hands of violent drug cartels and terrorist organizations.  If you really want to fight terror why not cut off their revenue instantaneously?

Many like to talk about body ownership when it comes to a woman’s right to choose.  Can those same people really believe in body ownership while not supporting the individual’s right to ingest whatever they want into their own body?

Vices are not crimes, destroy power not people.

About Author

Matt Bergman

Matt Bergman founded Punk Rock Libertarians in 2010. Formerly played guitar and sang in the Baltimore punk band “TENWATCH” and currently plays guitar and sings in “post freedom”.

  • So sad that it is so simple, yet hasnt happened.

  • Micah

    Good points

  • FredNomasters

    It’s a slippery slope, first it’s heroin, then cocaine, then marijuana, pretty soon they’re banning 22 oz. glasses of Mt. Dew in NYC.

    • Blair Sadewitz

      By public health measures, Mt. Dew is arguably the worst vis a vis “public heatlh”.

  • FredNomasters

    The craziest thing I heard was this guy getting busted for having this drug that doesn’t even get you high, it just treats the withdrawal symptoms. If something like that was over-the-counter, people would be more likely to quit.

    • Blair Sadewitz

      The point isn’t to stop people from getting high–the point is to protect the drug cartels.

      • FredNomasters

        Well, I supposed the guberment can’t go right out and say that can they. It would totally ruin their PR scheme.

  • FredNomasters

    Well, if someone’s drug use is severely impacting other people’s lives, they may stage an intervention.But that’s a horse of a different color, really doesn’t apply to all drugs or drug users.

  • No victim, no crime. Prostitution, drugs, gambling, and seatbelt use. Even though I only partake in the gambling, none should be crime.

    • Except for the thousands of prostitutes enslaved by their pimps and enslaved by their addictions to drugs

      • Yes, and if it were legal so much of it wouldn’t be undercover so the likelihood of forced slave sex would decrease. People could open brothels that were clean, with health records, and all the things that have already been shown to reduce STD rates and slavery in the many places it is already legal.

      • Blair Sadewitz

        A person can only be enslaved by other persons.

        • Thebob

          Wrong, only the individual can enslave themselves. Resistance is freedom from tyranny in all forms. Individual liberty can only be freely given by the individual not taken.

    • Blair Sadewitz

      and the corollary: “No Crime, No Law”

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LUfJN3bf3M

      • Blair Sadewitz

        NO CRIME, NO LAW
        By Lord Commander

        The government of every country
        Should pay a criminal a big salary
        And when they commit a crime,
        The law shouldn’t give them any long time
        The police should be glad when one twist a jaw
        Lock a neck, buss a face, or break open a store
        They should be merry when somebody violate the law
        Because that is what the government is paying them for.

        Chorus:
        For if somebody don’t buss somebody face
        How the police man going to make a case?
        And if somebody don’t dig out somebody eye
        The magistrate wouldn’t have nobody to try
        And if somebody don’t kill somebody dead
        All the judges got to beg their bread
        So when somebody cut off somebody head
        Instead of hanging, they should pay them money instead!

        A thief give the whole force a promotion
        From a police to a Commissioner
        And is the Commissioner that living in the big mansion
        And the man who promote him down Carrera
        And if somebody don’t crack somebody skull plate
        They wouldn’t have no jail courthouse or magistrate
        Still, when a man cut open somebody belly
        Is custody and the cat o’ nine tails for he.

        Chorus:
        And if somebody don’t buss somebody face
        How the police man going to make a case?
        And if somebody don’t dig out somebody eye
        The magistrate wouldn’t have nobody to try
        And if somebody don’t kill somebody dead
        All the judges going to beg their bread
        So when somebody cut off somebody head
        Instead of hanging, they should pay them money instead!

        If a man don’t lick out a woman teeth
        Or she don’t part he part face with poui
        Or saw off one of he hand with a saw
        What the government going to pay men of the law for?
        Because you kick me and I break your ankle
        Men of the law becoming honourable
        And still when you do them things
        They send you straight in jail
        And from the time they hold you, is without no bail

        Chorus:
        And if somebody don’t buss somebody face
        How the police man going to make a case?
        And if somebody don’t dig out somebody eye
        The magistrate wouldn’t have nobody to try
        And if somebody don’t kill somebody dead
        All the judges going to beg their bread
        So when somebody cut off somebody head
        Instead of hanging, they should pay them money instead!

        Don’t doubt me, is true, on the criminal
        Men of the law becoming social
        And living of high society
        And associating with big company
        A lawyer should kiss a criminal anyway
        For is off of them they making their money everyday
        You know this calypso is true, some of them may vex
        But the fall of one is rising of the next.

        Chorus:
        For if somebody don’t buss somebody face
        How the police man going to get a case?
        And if somebody don’t dig out somebody eye
        The magistrate wouldn’t have nobody to try
        And if somebody don’t kill somebody dead
        All the judges got to beg their bread
        So when a man kill, instead of swinging he head
        They should make him Governor General instead!

  • What the hell does the first sentence have to do with the story? Shot at by the Budweiser truck driver? WTF?

    • I believe he is trying to point out that if drugs were legal a lot of the violence in this country would go away. He did not highlight the violence aspect in his essay on the drug war, most likely because it is more of a grey area and hard to state that it would all go away if the war on drugs ended. While crime by organized syndicates is still around in America, it is nowhere near the levels it was during prohibition. I would be willing to bet that if we ended the prohibition on drugs we would once again see a vast drop in violent crime.

    • I could be completely wrong, but I took it as in a reference to drug dealers and the stereotypical bad areas and violence that surround it. When prohibition hit, violent crime went up with the majority of it being related to the prohibition itself. Once it was repealed, crime went down and instead of getting our alcohol from violence prone mobsters, it came via a companies delivery truck.

    • typical_goth

      Alcohol is legal so the Budweiser delivery guy doesn’t need to protect himself from people trying to raid his stash. People growing marijuana, for instance, have to worry about people coming in the middle of the night to steal their crops because there are nearly no legal ways of attaining said marijuana. Unless you live in one of the small number of states that had made it pseudo-legal (medically, mostly). Even then, the chances of some punks (criminal or government) coming to raid your house are pretty high. Hence, “When was the last time you were shot at by the Budweiser truck driver?”
      Although this does insinuate that we’re trying to steal from the beer guy or the pot grower.

  • I have to point out that LSD is a victory for the DEA, the problem is that the things that replaced it are much worse to the body. LSD is a drug that has little to no long-term negative impact on the body, cannot cause an overdose at almost any dosage (A chemist once mainlined enough to dose 100 people and was fine), is a known cure for cluster headaches (At a dose 10 times smaller than what is needed for recreational use), and yet is the only drug that the DEA clearly has won the fight.

    Most of what is called LSD these days is either refined LSA (Which can cause extreme damage to blood vessels in your extremities, and other unpleasantness) or modified chemicals more related to the family of meth. So the one “victory” by the DEA has in reality caused a great deal of harm to people. The truth is that the war on drugs has killed untold numbers of people simply because criminals control the supply, and quality of the products. If drugs were legal there would be no reason to cut powders with dangerous content, no reason to make drugs from dangerous precursors, and no reason to handle, produce, package, or ship drugs in unclean, unsafe locations.

    • Great point. I was literally getting ready to say the same thing.

  • The reason “drugs” haven’t been legalized is largely because it’s a huge cash cow for government mobster organizations like the CIA. It’s where black budget funding comes from. All the official moral reasons given are BS. It is and always has been, about the money.

  • colomtncwby

    The “war on drugs” much like the “war on terrorism” will not be ending any time soon. It has nothing to do with saving individuals from the vicissitudes of “illegal” drugs. As with anything else, simply follow the money. As a conservative estimate, we would need 25% less investment in the “justice Industry” if illegal drugs were legalized. That means 25% fewer cops, agents, lawyers, judges, parole officers, social workers, drug testers, psychologists, all of their support staffs—not to mention police stations, courts, jails, prisons, etc. Literally millions of people would be dumped on the unemployment roles with most having few, if any, transferable skills. And, that doesn’t even begin to count all the thousands of private businesses whose survival is predicated on a continuing “war on drugs.”
    The exact same analysis applies to the “war on terrorism.” None of this has to do with protecting people from themselves or terrorists. Between them, the “war on drugs” and the “war on terrorism” are probably the two single largest industries and empoyers in this country. You can argue all you like about government intrusion and whether it makes any moral or practical sense to fight illegal drugs or to invest more money into our military and homeland “security” than the whole rest of the world combined; but, when it comes down to it, there’s way too much at stake economically for either “war” to come to an end anytime soon.

  • William Patton

    Great article until the analogy of locking your neighbor in your basement. In a governmentless society, I’m not sure if there would be a point where I’d kidnap my neighbor and lock them in my basement. I may seek redress for their infringement upon my property, I might need to use armed force by myself or with other neighbors to compel a neighbor to do the right thing, but at what point would I imprison someone outside my own family as punishment? I’m not sure if that would ever happen. This article is preaching to the choir, I don’t think it will have a great reaching effect on those who do not already agree with you. You lost them sometime around government thugs.

  • Blair Sadewitz

    Nothing replaced LSD–that’s the point of prohibition.

    The DEA has clearly won the fight over every controlled substance. In fact, most drugs any rational person might ever want to buy are illegal without an ad-hoc license (prescription) issued by an agent of the state (licensed physician).

    But this isn’t really the DEA’s win–this is the majority of the people in the United States. They want it this way. To paraphrase Thomas Szasz, “dangerous drug” is a political term, like “dangerous person”.

    The difference between a medicine and a poison is, above all else, the dose.

    For the record: I am tired of methamphetamine being maligned. Given a choice between amphetamine and methamphetamine, the rational choice is methamphetamine. It crosses the blood-brain barrier more avidly and is more resistant to metabolism; a _lower_ dose can be given with fewer side effects than an equipotent dose of dextroamphetamine. The idea is to take _less_.

    But none of the “drugs of abuse” got that way because of any health concern. In fact, on a whole, the “drugs of abuse” tend to be _safer_ than many other therapeutically active substances.

    “Heroin overdose is almost nonexistent. Rather, heroin users who concurrently take tranquilizers, alcohol, and cocaine are those at risk for sudden death. But the promotion of the idea of heroin overdose (seen most recently in the well-off Texas suburb of Plano and the urban ghetto of Strathclyde, Scotland) likely encourages people to use heroin along with other drugs or alcohol.”

    http://lifeprocessprogram.com/lp-blog/library/the-persistent-dangerous-myth-of-heroin-overdose/

  • Martin Ekdahl

    Just came home from Amsterdam. Probably one of the safest large cities in Europe. And why? Because people don’t have to buy their stuff from some shady guys hanging in a street corner, with the risk of getting robbed by the sellers or busted by the cops. They just go to a coffeeshop and buy their drugs, just like they would have done in a “normal” coffeeshop. Because that is what it is – just another drug, like coffee, tobacco or alcohol. It should be treated like one!