Why Not Legalize Drugs? I'll Tell You Why Not.

The topic of legalizing drugs recently came up at a GOP presidential debate. More than a few Americans, politicians among them, have come to the conclusion that the War on Drugs has been lost and that drugs should be, if not legalized, at least decriminalized. The theory most often put forward by advocates of this position is that the the fight against drugs has gained us little in the way of curbing the usage of drugs and nothing to stop the harm done by them. Indeed, some argue that the war on drugs has been a huge waste of time, money, and resources. Furthermore, they argue that it is the illegality of drugs that is the major cause behind drug related crime. This is a very peculiar and dangerous position to take for several reasons.

First, not all drugs are alike. Commonly when the topic of legalizing drugs comes up most people, at least European Americans, think first and foremost of marijuana. This is not remarkable. Marijuana is most often the subject of choice in the legalization argument for several reasons. One, it is a very popular drug used by a large and diverse population in the country. Secondly, it is a relatively harmless drug in the larger scheme of things. In many ways it is less harmful than alcohol. Additionally, marijuana is not addictive or a major source of crime and social disruption. People rarely beat their spouses or kill people in bars in a marijuana induced stupor. People do not prostitute themselves or break into houses to obtain money for a marijuana fix. Legalizing marijuana is unlikely to destroy lives or cause social devastation. Many people use marijuana with no detriment to their personal or professional lives. If all drugs were like marijuana those in favor of legalizing drugs might have a case. But they are not. Not by a long shot.

Others might have pictures in their mind of Hollywood parties where stars snort cocaine or upscale nightclubs where designer drugs are offered to select guests. This too is a dangerous illusion. The reality of dirty and desperate crack heads, shooters, speed freaks, and junkies rarely comes to mind when the discussion of legalizing drugs comes up. The crime associated with drugs on the street is usually only discussed tangentially in the debate and then only in regard to buying and selling, not using. This leads to an deceptive and naive treatment of the subject. Once one gets past the rich, the beautiful, and the comfortable, the reality of drug use quickly becomes sordid.

People in support of legalizing drugs envision that such a policy would benefit society in a number of ways. They claim crime would be reduced, and not just by erasing a category of crime from the books. By decriminalizing drugs we would shift what is now an officially legal problem, into a social problem. In any event one of the major sources of crime in regard to drugs would be unaffected: they would still not be free. People would still need money to buy them. People would still commit crimes to get the money.

Some like to make the point that legalizing or decriminalizing possession of drugs below a certain threshold, usually around what is considered sufficient for personal use, would be useful in clearing up much of the drug related clutter in our courts and jails. But, again, this is a very myopic view of the issue. Would the sale of drugs be decriminalized as well? If not, people would still violate the law by buying and selling them. The purchase and sale of illegal drugs is the major preoccupation of the legal system, not use or possession. People would not have drugs in their possession if they did buy them. They could not buy them unless someone was selling them. You cannot sell drugs unless you have drugs to sell. Cocaine and heroin are not indigenous to the U.S. They are imported. It is the importation and distribution of drugs that underlay most of the drug related violence in our country as gangs and syndicates struggle for control of markets. The consequences of usage while sometimes tragic, are usually seen as more of a social problem than anything else.

Legalizing the possession of pot is one thing. If you want to talk about legalizing marijuana lets talk about legalizing marijuana. If you mean drugs, then let's talk about drugs, real drugs like heroin and cocaine, and let's talk about how people will get their drugs and what will happen after they use them. Unless you are willing to also decriminalize the sale and distribution of drugs the larger problem will remain. People are dying in Mexico right now in a struggle over drug distribution. Legalizing possession of drugs in the United States will do nothing to solve that. It likely would make things worse.

Too often when the subject of legalizing drugs come up it is dealt with in the abstract. It is seen as a matter of numbers: the costs of interdiction; the costs of adjudication; the costs of incarceration, and so on. But the issue of drugs is greater than the sum of its parts. Decriminalizing drugs might reduce legal costs, it might not. Crime might go down, it might not.  It will remove none of the social and personal costs of drug use. If anything, it will make them worse as those who might otherwise be reluctant to venture into the world of drugs have one less reason not to do so.

Columnist George Will wrote a recent editorial in favor of legalizing drugs. He pointed out how the illegality of the drug trade drives up profit. Profit drives business. He notes that if it weren't for our current drug policies, a $5 rock of crack could be sold profitably for 25 cents. Lower prices would mean lower profits. Lower profits would lead to less violence. That is precisely the sort of detached reasoning common among those far removed from the world of drugs. For them drugs are a matter of statistics: a simple matter of cost and effect that, along with everything else, can be handled by the market. If George Will and others really believe that 25 cent cocaine and heroin sold legally will solve the nation's drug problem they are sorely mistaken.

Across the river from the Capitol in Washington, D.C. is the neighborhood of Anacostia. I would be surprised if George Will has ever been there, let alone spent time there. It is the poorest, dirtiest, most crime plagued part of Washington. I would be surprised if anyone on Capitol Hill visits Anacostia. If people  want to seriously talk about the merits of legalizing drugs they should make it a point to visit neighborhoods like Anacostia first and see what drugs have done for those communities. Then they should try and envision what those neighborhoods would look like if drugs were legal. Then they should consider what people would do to get the money they needed to buy their drugs. But they won't. There will not be people selling drugs on George Will's street. There will not be junkies shooting up behind George Will's house. There will not be people panhandling and begging for money to support their habit in George Will's neighborhood. There will not be speed freaks breaking into George Will's house to get money to buy their drugs.

But I forgot. If people could get their drugs for just a few dollars, they wouldn't need to commit crimes or prostitute themselves to get money for their fix. They could simply wash windshields at intersections and beg on street corners for the few dollars they need. Hospitals and cemeteries could pick up the stragglers. The rich and the beautiful could cavort safe from the fear of being apprehended. Everybody else could carry on satisfied that the the nation's drug problem has been solved.

Now that I think about it, it might be nice to invite the guys over for the game with a big bowl of nachos and a dime bag of heroin once in awhile, or take the wife out for a nice meal and a rock of crack. I suppose I should give the matter a little more thought.

What is the Problem With Bigamy

The Dallas Morning News regularly runs a column called Crime Stoppers. In the column, a list of people currently wanted by the Dallas police department is published a long with a photo of the person and the charge they are wanted on. The crimes typically cover a wide range of offenses, from public intoxication and burglary to armed robbery and murder. (I have not yet discerned how or why particular people are chosen for an appearance in the column.) In this morning's paper, there was a listing I have not seen before. Sean Block, age 30, is wanted for bigamy.

It is surprising that in this enlightened age of homosexual marriage that there are still laws against bigamy. Certainly the idea of traditional marriage as one between one man and one woman is not a barrier. If two men decide they want to get married, many demand that the state accede to their request. Many courts have upheld the legitimacy of gay marriage and conferred upon it the same rights and privileges accorded to traditional marriage. Any infringement of that right usually must be able to withstand a high level of scrutiny.

Laws against miscegenation, adultery and fornication have long gone by the board. So why are laws against bigamy, to say nothing of polygamy, allowed to stand? Is it because bigamy undermines the idea of marriage as a union between one man and one woman? That cannot be it. That barrier has been breached. Could it be because polygamy is contrary to what is written in the Bible? That is a laughable proposition. Since when have the courts cared what is in the Bible? Could it be because polygamy is seen to undermine the morals or threaten the health of the community? Certainly that is not the case. Morality we are told is simply a subjective set of beliefs that do not bind anyone but the person who feels them and there is no evidence that bigamy is any more of a threat to public health than monogamy. Moreover, as is often chanted by the left, you cannot legislate morality. Essentially, the reason bigamy is illegal is because most people, liberal and conservative alike, (albeit for very different reasons), object to it. So strong are the feelings against bigamy that any religion that embraces it or group that advocates for it is scorned. Tolerance, religious or otherwise, does not extend to bigamy.

It can, (and likely one day will), be argued that bigamy hurts no one. Where bigamy is the result of coercion or involves minors it becomes a matter where the law is obliged to step in. If a bigamous marriage is the result deceit there is already a legal remedy. It is called divorce. Where bigamy involves consenting adults, there is no basis for legal interference, especially if it is rooted in religious tradition. Simply put, bigamy is illegal because most people object to it. It is an institution that runs contrary to Christian tradition and the moral sensibilities of an overwhelming majority of Americans. But why should it matter what most people or particular religions think? As we have been told time and time again, just because something offends people or violates a religious tenet is no basis to make it illegal.

Often in the U.S., when it comes to moral issues it doesn't matter what the public thinks. As far as the law is concerned, public opinion is not important. Why should it matter how Americans feel about polygamy? By the standards of modern relativism, traditional marriage is simply one of the last remnants of an antiquated notion of religion and moral propriety. If we are to keep making progress towards the ideal society, cobwebs such as bourgeoisie notion that marriage should be confined to a union between two consenting adults must be swept away. If Jane can marry Betty, why can't Robert marry Sarah and Ruth?

Custom, tradition, and community sensibilities have been steadily eroding as foundations of law. Without them, we are left with only reason to guide us. Reason alone is not a sufficient basis for drafting law. It never has been. This is because simply following a line of reasoning can lead not only to places one doesn't want to go, but also to places one never imagined to go.