The World According to Nick - Picking the Problem You'd Rather Deal With

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Picking the Problem You'd Rather Deal With

I decided to head out to Drinking Liberally again this month, because really... it's a good excuse to continue my drinking habit in a socially acceptable way. There were lots of new people there I got to meet, a new blogger, and good conversation. Being a libertarian in a group like that (or with my regular Drinking Right buddies) makes it easy for me. People can usually find half my arguments palatable, especially with alcohol in their systems.

One of the major conversations I had was regarding the War on Drugs, which also covered illegal immigration and prostitution. The conversation really centered around what these three things have in common... a black market. When it was discovered that I am in favor of complete drug legalization (not just pot), the first question asked was, aren't you afraid that addiction will increase?

It's a valid question. And I do think that addiction would more than likely increase (though more so on the lower end of the drug scale with pot, rather than with harder drugs). But the reality is, the vast majority of crime that occurs with the War on Drugs has nothing to do with drug use. This idea that coked out addicts are committing all this crime is a convenient myth perpetuated by many drug warriors. Not that those types of crimes don't occur, but the vast majority of crime has nothing to do with drug use, but rather with control of the black market.

So when I'm asked about the potential increase in drug addiction, I simply answer that as a society, it's easier to help addicts, then it is to deal with the decline we've encountered in our society caused by murder, gangs, and grand theft, that is directly cause by the black market in drugs, which only exists because people have made drugs illegal.

Only an idealistic fool would say it's possible to have both no addiction, and no black market crime. So which would you rather have?

Posted at 10:08 PM by Nick |

16 Comments | No Trackbacks

Add to del.icio.us | Digg this Post | Filed Under: Overkill

Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:58:59 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

How do you help the addicts if you are against taxes and want the government to be as miniscule as possible?

I believe all drugs should be decriminalized (and certain ones legalized), but legalized drugs should be taxed as severely as the market will bare and remain as expensive as possible. Converting the governments drug warriors into government drug regulators and drug rehabilitators is the right thing to do, but I am not sure it will have the government shrinking or tax relieving effect libertarians hope it will.

3rd Way

Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:10:38 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

You really make two poor assumptions there 3rd Way. First of all, you assume that I meant that government out to be the one to do the rehabilitation and assistance. While there may be a role there, I believe its more important to have private enterprises doing this which families can help addicts get into. While some of those exist now, there is a great deal of risk for an addict to come forward and take advantage of these things for fear of government retribution through jail if caught in a relapse.

Secondly, taxing drugs heavily and keeping them expensive won't remove the black market which is the true problem, and therefore should not be an option. Look at what happens to alcohol when it is taxed too heavily compared to the price of manufacture. You get a lot of moonshiners. There are two problems with this. First, you have black markets tied to distribution and manufacture (which leads to crime), and you also have great incentive to create poor quality product which leads to greater health hazards.

Nick

Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:40:29 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

The argument that legalizing drugs will increase addiction and therefore increase crime overlooks the fact that addicts focus their energies on DOING the drugs. Crime occurs when addicts can't afford to pay for what they're already planning to buy. When they're affordable and legally available crime goes down because, let's face it, an addict would rather stay home with a straw up his nose.

Venomous Kate

Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:09:30 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

You shouldn't be critical of poor assumptions Nick.

If drugs are legal and cheap you agree that addiction will likely become a bigger problem. How can you assume that the free market will take care of necessary additional drug rehabilitation programs? Since when is coaxing a junky to get off smack profitable? How can you make that profitable? Voluntary and private rehab centers are only available to people with disposable income and the loved. We cannot assume that the majority of drug addicts fall into those categories.

The problems with the black market surrounding the drug trade are larger than the problem of drug use and abuse. In my comment I specified that drugs should be taxed to what ever extent the market will bear. Legalized drugs should be taxed heavily, but only to the point where they still undercut the price of drugs on the black market. Immediately after legalization you would likely have to drop the price of drugs to be dirt cheap in order to put drug cartels out of business.

3rd Way

Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:58:35 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

There are a few things here. One... you can't help everybody. I believe that free market rehab programs will grow, and will thrive. There will also be a bigger market for charitable organizations to come, as they often times do, to help those that can't afford the cost of something more expensive. Finally, by eliminating the War on Drugs, billions of dollars that we throw away annually on policing and drug interdiction can be re-routed to other things.

But I do believe that your comment on pricing drugs just a little cheaper to keep the cartels out of business is naive at best. The markup on drugs is thousands of percentage points. That means they have A LOT of profit to give up in order to still remain profitable, and continue to make it worthwhile to perpetuate the black market. I think you can tax drugs to a certain degree, but not nearly as much as you think.

Nick

Thursday, July 17, 2008 3:00:04 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

Naive at best? I am not the one being naive here.

If you seriously think you can end our nations drug problem by allowing companies to deliver legal drugs at whatever price they want you and leave the private sector to clean up the addiction mess you are living in a fantasy land. It would never work in reality and there is no way in hell it would ever come close to working politically.

I agree with a lot of the principals of libertarianism, but the libertarian policy stances have no basis in reality.

Our drug laws seriously need to be overhauled. We need a realistic and workable approach. Fantasizing about a utopia where charitable altruism can overcome the problems of drug addiction is not going to bring about the change that is needed. Legalizing drugs would create a need for investment in rehabilitation programs. Funding for those rehabilitation programs would have to come from somewhere, taxing drug sales would be the best way to come up with that revenue. Keeping drugs expensive through taxation is a good way to deter use. Look at what high taxes on Tobacco have done to tobacco use.

3rd Way

Thursday, July 17, 2008 3:05:04 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

As I said in the very beginning, it's impossible to have both no crime, and no addiction. I'd rather deal with a constant level of addiction in society, than the crime that comes with a black market. And to be honest, if someone chooses to use drugs to the extent that they become addicted, and they fall flat on their face and have neither the friends, family, nor resources to get themselves out... then screw them. They got what they deserved. They made a choice, and will have to deal with the consequences.

Nick

Thursday, July 17, 2008 3:44:40 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

As I said in the very beginning, it's impossible to have both no crime, and no addiction. I'd rather deal with a constant level of addiction in society, than the crime that comes with a black market.

That is the part of libertarianism I agree with.

if someone chooses to use drugs to the extent that they become addicted, and they fall flat on their face and have neither the friends, family, nor resources to get themselves out... then screw them. They got what they deserved.

This is the part of libertarianism I don't understand. Compassion and altruism are part of human nature and are also pragmatic. You can say screw the deadbeat addicts, but addicts do occassionally beat grandmothers to death for their pocketbooks.

3rd Way

Thursday, July 17, 2008 3:49:00 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

"If you seriously think you can end our nations drug problem by allowing companies to deliver legal drugs at whatever price they want you and leave the private sector to clean up the addiction mess you are living in a fantasy land."

I don't think Nick even implies that he thinks this. He clearly stated that, of course, there would be costs to the course of action he advocates (a big difference between libertarians and you Republicans/Democrats is that we consider costs).

I agree with Nick 100% here. No gang in America could win a turf war against Walgreens. Cutting down on crime is more important than cutting down addiction.

jesusisjustalrightwithme

Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:02:45 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

Deadbeat addicts do beat grandmothers for their purses. But they do it far less often than gang members controlling drug turf murder and terrorize neighborhoods. In an effort to try for 100% crime prevention, you end up creating more crime than you solve. I pick the deadbeat purse snatcher over the black market murderers.

Nick

Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:27:53 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

I am agreeing with you guys more than disagreeing. I think that is pretty clear from my first comment. The war on drugs is completely counter productive. I started off by questioning costs, not ignoring them as you claim JIJAWM.

I would also prefer to deal with the drug addicted deadbeat purse snatchers over gang banging drug dealers, but the drug addicts would still be a problem. The purpose of my first comment was to find out how Nick the resident libertarian would deal with it. His answer was what I feared it would be... "screw 'em".

3rd Way

Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:08:31 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

I prefer to think of it as letting them screw themselves.

jesusisjustalrightwithme

Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:59:40 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

What? No one asks the libertarian whether the heroin vending machines need to check for ID? You guys need to learn the rules of engagement or it's just no fun.

Is it just me, or do the comments on this blog get all messed up and run outside the borders of their boxes, even in IE 7?

John Foust

Friday, July 18, 2008 10:17:55 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

The get messed up for me too.

I thought letting the comments run free over their borders however they see fit was just a libertarian thing.

3rd Way

Friday, July 18, 2008 2:15:11 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

I pick the deadbeat purse snatcher over the black market murderers.

My only problem with that is with black market murderers you've got bad guys killing other bad guys . . . generally. With the purse snatchers, while it may not always lead to killing, the innocent get involved. But, all things being equal in this rather out there hypothetical, I would also take the lower incident crime.

Addiction can lead to desperation, which can lead people to act desperately. While I agree over all, to think there wouldn't be crime if drugs were legalized, I agree with 3rd Way here, is naive.

jimi

Monday, July 21, 2008 9:52:07 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)

3rdWay
Re: ...but addicts do occassionally beat grandmothers to death for their pocketbooks.

You are assuming of course Grandma is unarmed. It is precisely for her protection against the deadbeat, addict purse snacther that she is armed.

Only Sam Colt has found an effective way to equalise the physical dangers posed by a confrontation between a 60+ grandma and a 20-something purse snatcher.

John Washburn

Comments are closed.