Prohibition II
 a.k.a. "The War on Drugs"





Prohibition, The War on Drugs -- Call it whatever you like. Both terms may be used interchangeably. Yet for some reason, most Americans fail to see the correlation. To most, the term prohibition refers only to the prohibition of alcohol back in the 1920s. Many see prohibition as a noble, yet failed experiment. Yet, these same people see the War on Drugs as something completely different. It isn't prohibition at all. "Of course drugs are illegal ... They have always been illegal, haven't they? ... Wasn't it one of the Ten Commandments?.. Thou shall not lie, steal, kill, or worship at the golden bong."

Somehow, the idea that drugs have always been illegal has implanted itself firmly into the collective conscious. But we all need to take a closer look at the history surrounding prohibition. Prohibition and the War on Drugs are the exact same thing -- An attempt to control man's appetite for sin through legislation. They are merely two different faces of the same creature - the temperance movement of the 1800s. And although America thought it finally beat this monster back in the 1930s with the 21st amendment, the truth is that the war was just beginning.

The fact that most people don't see the relation between the war on drugs and prohibition is perhaps one of the greatest marketing feats of the 20th century. They are the exact same thing... A small group of people believes that an activity is dangerous. -- They try to convince people to stop partaking in that activity. -- The people ignore them. -- They convince the government to pass a law to abolish the activity. -- The people ignore the law. -- The people become criminals. -- The people go to jail -- People begin profiting by providing the illegal service to other people -- People kill each other to protect their profits. -- More people go to jail. -- People begin asking government to rethink its policy.

At this point, a public debate takes place. Is the prohibition really working? The prohibitionist would argue that the ill-effects of alcohol and drugs are so overwhelmingly obvious, that no sane human being should even want to use drugs at all. Yet, given the fact that people are still using these horrible substances, it would seem that some people are still not convinced. Therefore, it is necessary to up the ante, and add the ill effects of prison time and asset-forfeiture to the equation.

But the question is, "Does it work?" Did alcohol prohibition work back in the 1920s? Did it succeed in its primary goal - eliminating "demon alcohol"? It is true that alcohol consumption dropped considerably shortly after prohibition took effect. But, this was only a temporary condition caused by the disruption in the supply of alcohol. Almost immediately after the legal breweries and saloons were closed down, speakeasies began sprouting up to take their place. It took a few years for the black market to get going, but as soon as it did, alcohol consumption nearly returned back to normal.

It is difficult to get exact figures on alcohol consumption from the 1920s since, after all, it was an underground activity. Some guesses show that in the waning years of prohibition alcohol consumption was at around 60-70% of pre-prohibition levels - other people argue that there was actually an increase. The only "official" figures I have found show that alcohol consumption in 1934 (the year after prohibition) was 50% of the level in 1919 (the year before). But even this number is somewhat suspect since a few state and counties held onto prohibition for a few years after the repeal of the 18th amendment - So, it is probably safe to assume that they had a sizable black market as well. In any case, the numbers show that prohibition fell well short of achieving its primary objective - the total elimination of alcohol.


Murder and Assault (By Firearm) 1910-1943
But alcohol prohibition was about more than simply getting rid of booze. Alcohol Prohibition was supposed to be a national cure-all. People bought into the idea of prohibition because it really was going to solve all of our country's problems. -- It was going to reduce crime by eliminating the drunkard. -- Reduce the tax burden caused by putting those drunks in jail. -- Eliminate poorhouses by sobering-up the poor. -- Improve public hygiene. -- Lower death rates... all in all, it was going to do everything but mow your lawn and shine your shoes. Once the stench of alcohol had been removed from the face of our nation, life would be just grand.

But as we all know, it fell short of achieving these goals as well. And in general, it only made things worse. It is extremely difficult to find any accurate figures on crime for this time period. Before prohibition, there really wasn't any sort of "national" law enforcement, and therefore there really wasn't any "standard" method of reporting and indexing crime rates. Most of the statistics of crime rates covering the period of 1900-1950 are combinations of data taken from several different sources, with estimates of crime in the early part of the century coming from an inconsistent approximation of "local" crime figures, and mid-century estimates coming from standardized "federal" statistics. There is also a little bit of grey area on either side of the "official" prohibition years since there were many "dry" counties and states in the years before federal prohibition started, and a several of them hung on a few years after prohibition ended. (Mississippi remained "dry" until 1966, and there are still some dry counties to this day). But despite these difficulties, we are still able to see a general trend toward more crime during prohibition, and a sharp decline in the post-prohibition years.

But I should point out that statement isn't entirely correct. It is true that the level of minor crimes (such as public indecency, vagrancy, and other minor disturbances) did see some decline during the prohibition years. So it appears that prohibition was successful at dissuading drunks from staggering down the street singing "Sweet Molly Malone" with their pants around their ankles, since they knew that public displays of intoxication could get them 6 Months in prison. (They just did it indoors instead) But I think what is more important is that the occurrence of more serious crimes (homicides, burglaries) jumped 24 percent in 1921 alone - the year after prohibition took effect. Throughout the 1920s, crime and corruption continued to rise to unprecedented levels - and most of this crime could be linked directly to the underworld that prohibition spawned.

Of course, this is not to say that prohibition created organized crime. The Mafia, of course, existed prior to 1920. They were already in the business of providing other prohibited services to the general public, namely gambling and prostitution. But what prohibition did do was hand the Mafia a new market - allowing organized crime to become filthy stinking rich! When the government decided to add alcohol to the list of taboos, organized crime was more than happy to make this prohibited substance available to the public. And why shouldn't they? There were tons of money to be made.

In the pre-prohibition years, organized crime had been confined to brothels and bookie's basements. But now, thanks to prohibition, they were everywhere - in every neighborhood - on every block. By 1925, there were over 100,000 speakeasies in New York alone. If you wanted a drink, you could easily get it. The public had no problem at all obtaining alcohol. In fact, there were so many criminals in the alcohol business that gangsters had a really hard time holding on to their territories. Gang warfare became rampant, and murder rates in large cites like Chicago and New York nearly doubled as a result.

Prohibition was impossible to enforce. But the primary obstacle for law enforcement was not organized crime -- It wasn't all the corrupt policeman & judges, or the high-ranking officials on the mob's payroll. It was the one simple fact that most people simply didn't care. Prohibition, for the most part, was treated as a non-law. People didn't go out of their way to help bring bootleggers to "justice", because after all, a lot of people were enjoying their services. The local police weren't much help either. Although some were persuaded to look the other way by way of bribes and blackmail, many others were opposed to prohibition for the same reasons as the general public - they wanted to indulge in the occasionally drink as well.

The police grew tired of being shot at by gangsters. The public grew tired of the gangland shoot-outs, the endless raids, and most importantly - their loss of freedom. A lot of people took issue with the fact decent people were being put behind bars away simply for having a drink. What kind of person wants to lock up "Granny" for simply stillin' up some "medicine"? And of course, nobody wanted to get locked-up themselves.

In the end, it was all boiled down to a case of supply and demand. The people demanded a drink -- So other people found ways to supply it. Alcohol was smuggled into the United States from all over the world. The Feds made futile efforts to patrol America's borders to keep the stuff from getting in the country, but with over 18,000 miles of coastline to protect, they met with little success. Barely 5% of smuggled liquor was stopped by the Feds. And in the end, it didn't matter. Whatever couldn't be imported was simply manufactured here in the states.

All of these facts, coupled with the Great Depression, caused public support for prohibition to disappear. The 18th amendment, which needed overwhelming support to be ratified in the first place, now had enough enemies in 1933 to be superceded by the 21st amendment, thereby clearing the way for states and counties to dismantle prohibition once and for all.

Well, sort of.

The same gang that had fought so hard for alcohol prohibition also succeeded in prohibiting other intoxicating substances as well. In 1914, they had succeeded in passing the Harrison Narcotics Act, which regulated and taxed the importation and distribution of opium and coca (cocaine) leaves. It is important to note that this act originally only included the power to tax - not to prohibit. During the years of prohibition that followed, the power to "regulate and tax" eventually mutated into full-fledged prohibition. In 1931, regulations were added to the Food and Drug Act that prohibited the manufacture of marijuana with exceptions for medical and industrial uses.

You would think that these provisions would have been revoked with the ratification of the 21st amendment in 1933, but that is not the case. These anti-narcotic laws effected a small number of Americans, so by and large, these laws went unnoticed. And in 1937, four years after the repeal of prohibition, congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act. As the name suggests, this law was passed under that guise of a "tax act", since after all, prohibition was over. And there is nothing unconstitutional about the federal government passing a tax. But this law did more than simply tax marijuana. This law imposed a series of regulations and taxes on marijuana growers, prescribers, sellers, and users. The taxes were relatively minor, but there were so many regulations that it was extremely difficult to comply with the law. Basically, in order to sell marijuana you were required to purchase a "tax stamp". According to the law, you had to already be in possession of the marijuana in order to receive the stamp. However, possession of marijuana without the stamp was illegal!!! The end result was that this "tax law" was written in such a way as to make it impossible to pay the tax! It was nothing more than a catch-22 ... you had to have marijuanna in order to pay the tax, but you could not have marijuana unless you had already paid the tax! Since failure to comply with the these insane regulations could result in immense fines and several years of jail time, nobody even tried to obey the law.

Why would anybody try to comply with the law, when compliance only made it easier for the Feds to find and arrest you? The net result of this tax act was that if a police officer saw anybody using marijuana, he could probably be sure that that individual was breaking the law. This is how marijuana prohibition was born.

Although the primary motivation behind this law was nothing more than good old-fashioned Puritanism, there were other motivating factors as well. Back in the 1930s, Marijuana usage was pretty much confined to one particular segment of society - Mexican immigrants. These immigrants, which had been welcomed in the 1920's, became liabilities in the 1930s when the Great depression settled in and cheap Mexican labors began competing with American laborers for jobs. Many of the supporters of this law saw it as a way to scare those people back across the border.

This law was never really intended to be used against "real" Americans. Just like all the other prohibition laws which proceeded it, the Marijuana Tax Act was aimed at a small segment of society - Mexican immigrants and blacks.

Opium laws allowed police to go after the Chinese; Peyote laws allowed the police to go after American Indians; And Marijuana laws targeted Blacks and Hispanics. The primary reason alcohol Prohibition was such a dismal failure was because it targeted average Americans. Even the enactment of alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment because everyone agreed that it infringed on the rights granted by our founding fathers. But, few people questioned the legality of these other prohibitions since it didn't affect them personally. Those other people shouldn't be in be in our country to begin with, so why should they be granted the same rights? These other prohibitions weren't targeted at mainstream Americans, so the question of constitutionality really wasn't a major issue.

But in the 15 years following the Marijuana Tax Act, marijuana usage began to catch on with other groups of Americans. And, thanks to these laws, the government was able to persecute them as well. Jazz musicians, artists, communists, and other "unwelcome" groups were easy targets of these laws, and most people liked it that way. And again, nobody cared because the government wasn't going after them. Over this time, penalties for drug violations were increased. The Boggs Act of 1951 and the Narcotic Control Act of 1956 instated mandatory minimum federal sentences for drug offenders.

But in the 1960's, these drugs made there way into "white" America. "Hippies", which had other arguments against the federal government (Vietnam War, Civil Rights), openly defied the federal government's ban on these substances and began to "tune-in and drop-out". And, as one might suspect, the government began using these drug laws to try to get rid of these "undesirables" as well. But the mandatory minimum sentancing required by federal law began to cause some "PR" problems for the prohibitionists. One famous case was that of John Sinclair, who was sentenced to 10 years for possesion of two joints.

So now, the question of re-legalization began to arise. NORML and other groups began openly questioning the government's policy on drugs - and the constitutional legitimacy of such laws. So in 1970, the federal government completely abandoned the guise of prohibition-through-taxation, and passed the "Controlled Substances Act". It was now official. Prohibition was back - with or without another constitutional amendment.


Can you spot the prohibitions?
So the 1960s and 70's heralded the return of prohibition. So, it should come as no surprise that the 1970s also ushered in the return of same problem that we faced back in the 1920's. Crime, violence, government corruption, disrespect for the law, and loss of individual freedom. And all can be blamed, at least in part, on the return of the policy of prohibition -- or as the modern folk prefer to call it -- " The War on Drugs ". The War on Drugs has allowed organized crime to flourish once again. And thank God - the repeal of alcohol prohibition robbed organized crime of their prime money maker (Hmmm... Does anybody happen to remember how the Kennedy's made their money?...) Crime rates have returned to prohibition levels. And naturally, overzealous politicians insist on passing more and more laws in an attempt to stifle all of this crime.

But you would think that Americans had learned their lesson in the 20s. You would think that we would have put and end to it by now, just as they did in the 1930s. But we're not. Most Americans don't realize that prohibitions simply aren't necessary. There aren't many Americans still alive that can remember life before prohibition, and most can't imagine life without it. People don't remember that a constitutional amendment was necessary to enact prohibition back in the 20s. They don't realize that without a constitutional amendment, prohibition is still unconstitutional. Few people notice that the 18th amendment only allowed the feds to regulate "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors" ... not to go after people for simple possession of an "intoxicating liquor". And even fewer realize the 21st amendment regulated the power to prohibit back to the states, thereby removing the federal government's power to prohibit intoxicating substances at all! But, in the minds of people that have lived under prohibition all of their lives, the federal government does have the power to prohibit, don't they?

Well, let me ask you this. If the government has the inalienable right to enact prohibitions on intoxicating substances, why did we need a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol? Why didn't they simply pass the Volstead Act without all of the trouble of amending the constitution?

I'll tell you why ... It is because they acknowledged the fact that prohibitions trampled on the bill of rights. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the Federal government has the power control individual lives in this way.

But the supporters of prohibition felt that freedom from alcohol was more important than freedom from government. And there is nothing in the constitution keeping the people from giving up their rights if they so choose. Hell, we could overturn the entire bill of rights if we were so inclined - We'd just need to convince two-thirds of congress and three-fourths of the states agree with us, but it would be completely legal. There is nothing illegal about changing the constitution. Alcohol prohibition may have been a tremendous mistake, but at least they did it by the book.

I for one am of the opinion that no "good idea" is more important than the inalienable rights of mankind. But of course, each man is entitled to his own opinion. And if 3/4 of the states choose to enact prohibition, so be it. But I take great issue with a government that sidesteps its own laws. It is this "rule of law" that sets our governments apart from the other dictatorships of the world. When our government ignores these rules, we in effect become a dictatorship. It is "we the people" that authorized this government to rule over us, with the provision that they rule according to the rules spelled out in the constitution. And when the government violates the laws which we laid out for them, why should they expect the people to live by the rules they lay out for us.

And who knows. Maybe some day we will repeal the Bill of Rights - and maybe we'll actually do it by the book this time. After all, that 200-year-old piece of paper is sure making prohibition difficult to enforce. Maybe prohibition actually would be winnable if "criminals" weren't protected by that ancient piece of revolutionary garbage.


I'm sure there are some people out there that are saying to themselves, "Gee, all that really would help us win the war on drugs!" This is the direction that some prohibitionists are trying to take us. They are seeing that this war is un-winnable. And the reason it is un-winnable is because it is a "Limited Conflict". There are some weapons that we are not willing to use in this war - weapons that would undoubtedly bring us closer to victory.

Most of the weapons used in the war on drugs are aimed directly at restricting personal freedoms. Activities such as property forfeitures and no-knock raids strip individuals of their property rights and of their freedoms. In fact, the ONLY way to enforce prohibitions (and other "Victimless crimes") is by invading the privacy of the individual. By its very definition, these crimes have no "victims", and therefore there isn't anybody to report these crimes to the authorities.

All other "real" crimes have victims. Victims that can in turn, report the crime. -- Burglary can be reported by the person burglarized -- Con men can be reported by the person conned -- Rape can be reported by the person raped -- assault can be reported by the person assaulted -- and murder can be reported by, well, the family and friends of the guy that was murdered. But for drug use, the only person that usually can report the crime is the person committing the crime - the person that uses the drugs - or by acquaintances that use drugs along with him. And you can be pretty sure that they aren't going to turn him in.

So what can the government do? How can they bring all of these "criminals" to justice? The only option is to resort to less-than-noble practices. They use narcotic agents to infiltrate society and weed out the "undesirables". They urge school children to report on the activities of their parents. They fly over cities and peer into homes with infrared cameras to look for indoor "greenhouses". They create a bunch of frivolous traffic laws that allow police to pull over virtually any citizen they please in order to search their car and various bodily cavities. However, all of these tactics STILL hasn't been enough to curb drug use. So, they must constantly explore new ways to rip people of their rights. More laws, more punishments, more surveillance, more arrests. When they finally are successful in finding one of these miscreants, they punish him in every way possible. They strip him of his rights, his personal freedom, his property, and did I mention - his PROPERTY... they'll even go as far to seize the property of the criminal's FAMILY if they can find a way to get away with it.

And why shouldn't they steal the public's property? The drug war is an extremely expensive business. Somebody has to pay for it! Why should the all the taxpayers have to pay for it? Why not just make a few of the taxpayers pay for it - the ones we catch using drugs. Why not let them serve as a warning to others. We are loosing the war on drugs. The public just isn't getting the message. We need to punish these people in every way we can!

But, putting a recreational drug user to prison generally does more harm to the individual than moderate drugs use could ever do. In all honesty, which do you think is more harmful -- Smoking a joint every day -- or -- spending YEARS in a jail cell. And more importantly, which extracts a greater toll from society? If we really were concerned for the physical & mental well-being of the individual, we sure as hell wouldn't be throwing him in prison for 5, 10, or even 20 years. Imagine spending even ONE year of your life in jail... losing your job, your girlfriend, your self-respect, and your freedom! Not only that, think about the lovely people you'd get to spend that year with. Incarcerating non-violent drug uses in prisons with murders and rapist is an absolutely TERRIBLE idea. When put together, criminals learn how to be drug users and drug users learn how to be better criminals.


QUOTE
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
- Cornelius Tacitus (c. 116 A.D.)


We need to acknowledge one simple truth. The more laws you create, the more laws there are to be broken. If you make enough laws, you will eventually turn everybody into a criminal. If our government was able to catch every person that broke our laws, most of us would be sitting in a jail cell right now. The majority of Americans have used drugs at some point in their life. Can you imagine what would happen if every one of them were caught? We should consider ourselves lucky that prohibition is so hard to enforce. But there are those that believe that we should create even more laws - and punish the people they catch even harder - just to make up for the ones that get away with it.

In 1995, we put more of our citizens behind bars than any other nation in the world, except for Russia. But, far be it for Americans to settle for second best! In the five years following 1995, we have taken the lead, In 2000, it is estimated that the U.S. will incarcerate approximately 700 out of every 100,000 citizens, surpassing even old mother Russia. But hey, it shows how serious we are about fighting drugs. And there are a lot of people that are grateful that our government cares so much about us to go to such great lengths to protect us from ourselves.

And all of this love isn't coming from just one particular party. Both Democrats and Republicans love us in their own special way. The Democrats, remaining true to their minority base, have demonstrated that they really do care about the plight of inner-city blacks. So much so, that black males have a 29% chance of serving time in prison at some point in their lives, but white males only have a 4% chance. But that just shows how much they really care! You would almost expect the Republicans to protest all of this special treatment. I mean, those blacks are always getting free stuff from the government - now they're getting a nice cozy bed and three meals a day -- not to mention, all of that great prison-sex!. But the fact that the Republicans are doing as much as they can to put even more people in jail shows that they care just as much, if not more, than the Democrats. And the minorities better not forget all this special treatment they are receiving. They should be thankful that almost one in three (32%) young black males in the age group 20-29 is under some type of correctional control (incarceration, probation, or parole). It should appeal to their sense of "social justice" to know that only 1 in 15 young white males and 1 in 8 young Hispanic males are lucky enough to receive as much special treatment.


By looking at the growth of the prison industry over the last few years, it would appear as though our government cares more and more. Hell, if they put everybody in jail, maybe we can finally win this war on drugs! We're off to a good start. As I stated earlier, we already have almost 700 out of every 100,000 American citizens behind bars - more than ANY other industrialized nation in the world. And for the record, that figure is only for prisoners in Adult facilities. It does not include juveniles serving time in detention centers. If it did, the number would be more like 730 or 740!

And the scary thing is, that these numbers show no sign of slowing! They have been increasing at a steady pace since the early 80s. And theoretically, if our prison population were to continue to expand at its present rate, we will have every American locked up by the year 2150. What a glorious day that would be! No more drug problem! Of course, the other nations of the world might be inclined to wonder how a country that is supposed to be the "Leader of the Free World" can do this to its own citizens. They may begin to question the US's authority to invade other sovereign states in the name of "Freedom" when our own domestic policy is in such a archaic state. But what the hell -- who cares what they think. At least we will finally be free of the scourge of drug use!

...on second thought... maybe not.

One would have to wonder if even that would be enough to stop drugs. After all, drugs still manage to get into prisons, don't they? Even if the government put a guard tower on every street corner, you can bet that there will be some people that are defiant enough to find some way to sneak around them to enjoy a little bud. So maybe jail time isn't enough. Maybe we should just EXECUTE them!! mu-ha-ha-ha!

Sorry, I appear to have digressed. That happens sometimes during these long rants.

But my point is this. If prohibition doesn't stop drugs, why are we doing it? If locking more and more people behind bars isn't stopping people from using drugs, why are we doing it?

At this point, some will point out that we lock up murderers, yet people still commit murder.... so following my logic, it makes no sense to lock up murderers either, since people are going to do it anyway. But the point is, murder is a REAL crime. It is a crime against another person. And if the Justice system didn't punish murderers, lynch mobs would. That is why we have a justice system - to prevent citizens from dispensing justice themselves. Our justice system's job is to dispense "justice" in a lawful and orderly manner. It has to. If it didn't people would take the law into their own hands.

Criminal law is supposed to be about justice. Prison's aren't there to "reform" a criminal - it's there to punish them. Sure, reform them if you can - If you can teach them to become law-abiding citizens, go for it. But that's not the primary goal.

That is why prohibitions are unconstitutional. I mean, where does "justice" come into play when sentencing drug users? The punishment needs to fit the crime. If a person robs you, they should be forced to pay restitution. If a person commits cold-blooded murder, he should be murdered himself. And if a person uses drugs, he should... he should what?... Should he force others to use drugs too?

No... that's just silly.

The point is, activities which do not effect other people are not crimes (not in a free society, at least). You cannot determine a 'just' punishment for them. And our current practice of locking people up for over 10 years for possession is just ludicrous. If drugs are illegal because society wants to keep these people from hurting themselves, why the hell are we locking them up for so long? I don't see how any rational person can believe that a 10 year prison sentence is better for a person that an occasional buzz. Marijuana is no more (and probably less) harmful than alcohol consumption. So the question is...

Does anybody out there feel that they would deserve a 5-15 year sentance for bringing a case of beer to a New Year's Eve party?

Well, apparently some people think so, because in some states, that is precisely what can happen to you if you're caught with one ounce of marijuana. There are even a few states were growing marijuana plants can qualify you for life in prison!

It should be obvious that prohibition laws were not written to help the people who are using these intoxicating substances. And if it isn't about protecting the people that use drugs, what's it all about? Protecting others? We already have laws in place to protect others. We already have laws to curtail public intoxication and DUI. It would be much simpler to simply enforce those laws, than it is to go through all this trouble arresting people in order to keep them sober in their own home.

How can a "free" country lock up so many citizens, and then turn around and convince them that it is for their own good? Do all these people really need to be locked away? If prohibition isn't having an impact on drug usage, why are all these people rotting away in prison? In case you are one who believes that there is some "other reason" for our country's high incarceration (Television, Music, Alien Mind control), let me throw some more statistics at you. One does not have to look very hard to find out why so many people are behind bars.


These statistics show fairly conclusively that most of the people in jail are there because specifically because of the war on drugs. These are people that are in prison for drug law violations, plus those that committed more serious crimes because of drugs (Drive-by shooters, Addicts committing theft to get drug money, etc.) As you can see, the number of "regular" criminals in prison was fairly steady from 1970 to 1989. But, as the numbers of "drug-related" criminals in prison began to rise in the early 80's (Thanks to the Reagan "War on Drugs"), it took all the levels of all other crime with it. And ever since that time, the levels of both have continued to rise steadily.

Allowing a criminal justice system to be taken over by drugs has a few "side-effects" of its own. More laws will naturally result in more criminals. As a result, our prisons become over-crowded. When prisons become over-crowded, it is necessary to release some of the older criminals to make way for the new. But since Federal sentencing guidelines restrict parole of drug offenders, it is people that are convicted of "petty" state laws (Rape, murder, theft) who are released first.

So, not only do these high incarceration rates cost almost 2 million people their freedom, they can sometimes actually increase crime rates because real criminals are being set free! And all of this is costing a ton of money. It cost the government $100,000 to build a prison cell, another $25,000 a year to keep a person in prison, and another $25,000 a year to pay for guards to watch that man and make sure he doesn't escape his cell.

When you consider that almost two thirds of the people in federal prison are serving time for a prohibition-related offense (and half of them for a first time, non-violent offense), the actual cost of prohibition begins to become obvious -- And we haven't even talked about how much money we spend on extra policeman, DEA agents, Judges, and lawyers. Federal and State governments spend nearly $40 Billion dollars on the direct costs of prohibition. But that doesn't include all of the extra spending on police and prisons, nor does it include other periphery costs such as loss of income due to incarceration, etc. Some people estimate the total cost of prohibition to be at least 70 BILLION dollars a year.

But even that is not a final figure, when you consider all of the tax revenue which could be collected if drugs were legal. Federal taxes on alcoholic beverages bring in nearly $8 billion a year, and local and state taxes brings in much more. If marijuana were legalized, it could easily bring another $10 Billion into State and Federal coffers.

Now, at this point I need to pause. Most people often have trouble comprehending such large numbers; so let me put these large figures into concepts that everybody can understand... And I'll break it down by political affiliation.

  • Democrats - $80,000,000,000 is enough to feed a starving African child (you know... "for 38 cents a day, the price of a cup of coffee") for 576 Million years - or a 576 million starving kids for a whole year. It is enough to raise 2 million teacher's salaries by $40,000 a year. $80,000,000,000 is enough to buy 400,000 homeless people a $200,000 home. Of course, that would mean that we would have to cut down millions of trees to build all of those houses. But don't worry. We can use the $80 Billion we save next year to plant millions more.

  • Republicans - Cutting $80,000,000,000 out of the budget would allow us to cut everybody's taxes by over 16%. We could enact a school voucher program that would allow over 25 Million school children to attend private schools. $80 Billion is almost enough to invade Iraq (or any other small country) once a year... every year! Or, we could strengthen our military by buying over 3000 more F-16s, 1700 of the new F-117A Nighthawks, or almost 80 of the vastly over-priced B-2 bombers!

  • Libertarians - We're already convinced.

  • Socialist - We could buy 80-Billion dollars worth of corporate stock each year and split up it up between the workers. In a relatively short time, the workers really would own the means of production!

    •

    But no... We don't do any of these things because we are wasting billions of dollars on the war on drugs, and what do we get? Prisons. Prison Guards. Inmates. Rich-ass lawyers. Crack-heads. Do any of these benefit society? Sure, they create jobs, but those jobs aren't benefiting society in the least. We would be better off paying half of them to dig holes, and the other half to fill them back up again... At least that way they wouldn't be bothering anybody else. Instead of prisons, we should be building schools. Instead of guards, we should have teachers.

    So we come back to the question.... does the benefits of prohibition outweigh the costs. What are we getting for our money? What are we getting in return for giving up our freedoms?

    The answer would appear to be a big fat ZERO.

    Several states have tried decriminalizing the use a marijuana. In these states, penalties for possession of marijuana have been reduced, making possession of small amounts no worse than a parking ticket. Studies have shown that decriminalization of marijuana does not lead to an increase in marijuana use. And if decriminalization does not increase drug use, why do people believe that harsh criminalization will decrease it? Of course, decriminalization is not the same thing as full legalization. But even if you believe prohibition has some impact on drug use, is that little gain worth all the trouble? The War on Drugs appears to be a stalemate. The more we try to enforce prohibition, the more problems we seem to have. Yet some still insist that we simply must do more to try to contain the problem. And every new law smacks right up in the face of the constitution. And most of our leaders are fine with that. They are willing to do whatever it takes to break out of this "Limited warfare" in order to annihilate the enemy.

    One does not have to look far back into history to find the last time America found itself stuck inside a "Limited War". The "Conflict" in Vietnam is the most recent example. In Vietnam, we had to weigh the benefits of winning in Vietnam with the cost of starting World War III. Sure, we could have sent more troops, but China would have done the same -- we could have bombed them even harder, but they would have bombed us back. Every time we upped the ante, they would have as well and the war could have escalated completely out of control. And as soon as Americans realized that the costs of winning in Vietnam exceed any possible rewards of victory, we pulled out.

    Sure, we may have won the war if we had been willing to drop a few nukes. But, it wasn't worth the risk of having our own citizens nuked in retaliation. And in the same way, the War on Drugs might be winnable if we were to go all out and attack our citizens with everything we had. If we were to give the police the power to simply shoot every drug user on sight, we probably would see a significant decrease in drug use. But on the other hand, we'd have a lot of dead citizens. But the only way to even come close to winning this war would be to take some sort of extreme measure such as this. And if we aren't willing to go all the way, all we can hope for is to merely contain drug use -- As if we would become a nation of pot-heads if marijuana were legal. We didn't become a nation of drunks after alcohol-prohibition was repealed, so why does everybody fear that ending drug-prohibition would be any different. Sure, there probably will be some increase in marijuana use, but there would also most likely be a decline in alcohol usage (Which is probably why alcohol companies spend so much money on anti-drug programs). People that want to catch a buzz can currently do so with alcohol and other legal drugs. Legalizing marijuana would increase the variety of drugs available to the public, but overall the number of people catching a buzz would remain the same. And in reality, anybody that wants to use marijuana can do so right now. Hell, I don't smoke pot, but I bet I could score a quarter-bag by the end of the night, if I really felt the urge. The only thing that would change if prohibition were repealed is that criminals would not be profiting from the transaction.

    In fact, society would be in a far better position to actually control the proliferation of drugs if they were legal. They could be taxed, their production could be supervised, and (since the use of drugs would be out in the open) it would be easier to treat people who actually have a drug-abuse problem.

    So, we must weigh the gains received by our current method of 'controlling' drug use, with the costs incurred by enforcing prohibition. Since prohibition is still popular, it would seem that most people seem to believe that the gains really do outweigh the costs. But this is mostly due to the fact that people are misdiagnosing the problem. They look around and see all the problems that drugs are causing in the community, and are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure the situation doesn't get any worse. If drugs were legal, wouldn't we just see more gang activity, moredrive-by shootings, and more crack-babies?

    When most people upon hearing news reports of gang warfare, drug overdoses, smuggling operations, and DEA stings, they believe what the government tells them -- That the only way to put an end to it is to get rid of drugs, once and for all -- never realizing it is prohibition itself which is responsible for all these problems! Yet, our government uses these problems as excuses to enforce prohibition even harder! They tell us we need more laws - more police - more punishments - more prisons. And apparently, people believe them since we keep electing these people to office. Every politician claims that he is going to get even "tougher" on this crime, yet somehow, the situation just gets worse year after year. Go figure. Could the reason be that these people won't acknowledge that it is not drugs that are the cause of all these problems, but rather the WAR on drugs are turning our inner cities into a Gangsters' paradise!

    When people hear about a drive-by shooting, they blame drugs. When they hear of a child being shot in the crossfire of gang warfare, the blame drugs. When a policeman gets killed by some motorists because they don't want to get busted for the roach in their ashtray, people blame drugs. When they see a heroin addict busting in a car window in order to get drug money, people blame drugs. When people hear of an addict dying of an overdose, just because she got a "Hot" dose, people blame drugs. When a group of drug-dealing thugs takes up shop on your block, and begins terrorizing the entire neighborhood, you blame drugs. When one of those thugs talks your teenager in to trying some drugs - just so that thug can afford to support his own habit - you blame drugs.

    But drugs are NOT the problem! None of these problems would even exist were it not for the war on drugs! You don't see these sort of things surrounding the sale of any legal drugs, do you? There aren't any alcohol-pushers hangin' out on the street corners! You don't see convenience store owners shooting each other up in territory disputes! If anybody overdoses on alcohol, it is through their own stupidity - NOT because the alcohol was improperly labeled! But it doesn't sink in with some people. They don't realize that 'homemade' drugs like crack and meth would never have even been invented if it weren't for the war on drugs. (If people had access to low-cost cocaine, why the hell would anybody even want a drug like crack?!?)

    All of these problems are obviously centered around drugs, but most people can't grasp the fact that it isn't the drugs themselves that are causing the problem, but rather the drug laws which are the root of all these evils. And more than that, they believe that anybody that thinks that the war on drugs isn't a good idea must be completely out of their minds!... How could anybody be against the war on drugs!?!... Just look at all the problems drugs cause!!

    But, it should be obvious to anybody that the "War on Drugs", not drugs themselves, that is the cause of all of this chaos. If it weren't for alcohol prohibition back in the 20's, what would have Al Capone done with himself? Were in not for prohibiton, how many "gansters" would we have today?

    Don’t get me wrong. Drug abuse is a very bad thing - But drug-prohibition is even worse. It is time that we recognize that the cure is actually worse than the disease. And the only way to fix the problem is to end prohibition - NOW!



    But of course, the question is, "How?" Nobody is really offering any alternatives. Nobody is really laying out the roadmap to steer our country out the prohibition policies of the 1920's into a drug-war-free future. Sure, some people may have heard of the groups that are pushing for the reform of drug laws. But most view them as hippie-era leftovers whose only motivation for changing the drug laws is so that they can get stoned without getting arrested. And they would be partly right. I don't think you would find to many pot-smokers out there supporting the war on drugs. Most of them would be more than happy to jump on the anti-prohibitionist bandwagon. The problem comes when you try to convince people that don’t use illegal drugs.

    This may come as a shock to some of you readers, but I do not smoke pot. I don’t want to smoke pot. If drugs were legal, I still wouldn’t smoke pot. But just because I don’t want to do something, doesn’t mean that I want to force that belief on my fellow citizens. I don’t skydive either, yet you don’t see me calling for a ban on parachuting, do you?

    QUOTE
    My final point about alcohol, about drugs, about Pornography...What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see or take into my body as long as I don't harm another human being whilst on this planet? And for those of you having a little moral dilemma on how to answer this, I'll answer for you. NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS! Take that to the bank, cash it in, and take it on a vacation outta my fucking life.
    - Bill Hicks, Comedian
    As long as somebody’s drug use doesn’t interfere with my life, I DON’T CARE what they do. I have never been harassed by anybody using drugs - but I have been harassed by the police - and that does bother me. I have no problem with laws that control public intoxication. I do have a problem with swat teams invading private residences in order to arrest people that are harming no one but themselves.

    They are plenty of other ways for people to do harm to themselves beside drugs. Yet, we don’t arrest them, do we? (Not yet, at least). Eating too much fast food can lead to heart attacks, yet Big Mac’s are still legal. (Hell, they don’t even have warning labels on them - I wonder how many years it’ll be before some bright wiz-kid lawyer figures this one out and sues the fast food industry). Automobiles are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans each year, yet nobody will arrest you for simply owning as car.

    We should conduct an experiment. We’ll have 100 people do nothing but drive around on the freeway eating Quarter-Pounders all day, and another group of 100 chilling at home smoking some herb - and we’ll see who lives longer. There is no evidence that pot has any real long term effects, yet it is a proven fact that poor diet can kill you. The point is, that there are so many other ways to do harm to yourself, why are we so bent out of shape about drugs? And if were just a question of public health, prohibition should have been repealed long ago. More people have been killed fighting the drug-war, than have died from drugs themselves.

    But yet, there are people in this country that actually believe that this drug war is winnable. When they hear of huge drug busts, there actually believe that the supply of drugs is being hampered -- That people using drugs aren't going to be able to find their drugs, thereby forcing these addicts to quit their nasty habits and become respectable citizens. Well, I have news for them. Drugs are easy to get! They will always be easy to get. The most you can hope to do is drive up the cost of drugs by decreasing the supply.

    But it is estimated that the government - despite hundreds of thousands of police & federal agents - only blocks about 10% of the drugs that come into this country. That's it. Of course, they often use these statistics as an argument for more funding, but aren't we paying enough already? And even if the Feds could put a dent in the supply of drugs, do you know what would happen? So what if drugs were more expensive - Drug addicts would simply have to steal more car stereos to support their habit. And most importantly, increasing the price also increases the profit, which in turn motivates even more people into finding ways to meet the demand. This is economics 101, people. It's simply the law of supply and demand. If people have a demand, someone is going to find a way to supply. And the more you decrease the supply, the more profitable the whole business becomes.



    Of course, there are some people out there that recognize this fact. They are willing to acknowledge that heavy-handed law enforcement is not the way to go. Of course, they still believe prohibition is a good idea, but they try to fight the war on drugs by decreasing the demand for drugs through propaganda and government re-education of our children.

    Attractive as this idea may sound, it is not without its own problems.

    There is some historical evidence to suggest that such a campaign may work. Mass-propaganda techniques have been used before by governments to successfully sway public opinion. Hell, if the Nazis could persuade the people of Germany to rise up against those filthy Jews, why can't the DEA convince Americans to fight against those disgusting drug-addicts? Why can't it work? Just dig up some old Nazi propaganda, remove Jews, and insert drug dealers, and voila! In theory, it should work. Jews were filthy creatures, and HEY, SO are drug addicts! Jews just wanted to rip you off, and HEY, so do drug addicts! Jews wanted to corrupt the minds of children, and what-do-ya-know, so do drug dealers! The Jews were getting rich on the backs of the poor, and, low and behold, so are the drug dealers! The Jews were responsible for convincing Germans to give up the fight in WWI, and drugs caused Americans to loose interest in Vietnam! Jews were collaborating with the communist to overthrow the German government and make it a puppet state of the Soviet Union, and drug dealers... well... want to make scrambled eggs out of your brains.

    Ok - I admit I might be stretching here. But I'm not as far off base as you might think. Just take a look at some old Nazi propaganda sometime, and you'll see what I mean. And sure, Hitler targeted people primarily because of their race, but he also attacked people for their personal beliefs as well. In the end, their goal was the same - eradication of a segment of society. But whereas prohibitionist can do this though re-education and imprisonment, there is only was only one way for Hitler to get rid of a entire race. But the point still remains - If Joseph Goebbels were alive today, he would be suing the Drug Czar for plagiarism.

    All that aside, there are a few other problems with the prohibitionist's propaganda. Hitler could bash Jews as much as he wanted, without worrying about anybody deciding to become a Jew. (I'm talking about race here people, not religion).

    The modern propagandist needs to take this into consideration when they are trying to teach our children about drugs. They need to be aware of the fact that they are going to be the ones responsible for introducing drugs to our kids. They need to realize that the primary reason kids become interested in drugs and younger and younger ages is that we are teaching kids about drugs at younger and younger ages. And sure, if you live in the inner city, it might be a good idea to teach your kids about drugs before the drug dealers do. But only if you live in a neighborhood that has drug dealers standing on every corner! Otherwise, you are only arousing their curiosity.

    Sure, these programs teach kids not to do drugs, but do you really think that matters? Any parent knows that telling a kids not to do something is usually the surest way of getting him to do it. Its a fact that everybody knows to be true. And if all of us know it, why don't our politicians seem to realize it? Why do they keep sending cops into our schools in a vain attempt to re-program our youth, when all they are really doing is teaching them how to be better drug consumers! Why do politicians insist on teaching our kids about drugs if they know that it will only arouse interest?

    I can speak from personal experience. I first became interested in drugs when I was in the Fifth grade. It wasn't from some evil drug dealer standing on a street corner, or from a group of "bad" kids holding a joint under my nose.... it was thanks to my grade school's "Drug Education" program. The program taught me about ALL of the drugs that were available, and told me the effects of each.

    "Acid will make you see colors" ... "Pot make you feel relaxed" ... Sure, they tried to tell me all of the "bad" things about drugs ... like how pot will give a nasty case of the munchies ... but do you really think I cared? Hell no! It sounded like it might be kinda' fun. My interest was peaked. And when I finally had the opportunity to try it out in High School, I did. And I really can't say I regretted it either. ;)

    Had I forgotten all of those horrible things that the officers taught me back in the 5th grade? No, but the program that they taught was so obviously one-sided that I figured that they weren't telling me the truth. And it would appear I was right. I'm still alive aren't I? I'm not lying in a gutter with a needle in my arm, am I? No. It would appear that my original assessment was correct - Those officers really were full of it. I have met many, many, MANY, people that used drugs recreationally, and none of them fit the profile of the drug-crazed-maniac that I was warned of in the 5th grade. They were all normal people. Some of them were a little fucked in the head, but most of them were all right.

    It wasn't until after college that I began seeing what those officers where warning me about. A couple of my friends graduated from pot and acid, and went on to heroin and crystal, and are now leading generally fucked-up lives. They're still alive, and appear to be enjoying themselves, but they are now poor, trailer trash losers. But then again, that was the life they were born into. They probably would have ended up that way anyway - with drugs or without. It's hard to say whether the hard drugs were a cause, or an effect. As for the rest of us, some of my friends continued to smoke pot, with little ill-effects, and others (like me) quit smoking and are generally doing OK as well. We had a good time, and we survived... just like everybody else. Or at least, like everybody else that got away with it. I'm sure if we had been thrown into jail for our crimes, our lives probably wouldn't have turned out so peachy.

    But, in any case, it was the "drug education" program in school that first got me interested in drugs. Before that time, I had no interest in drugs what-so-ever. Sure, I had heard of drugs before, but it never really interested me until then. Up until then, I thought that drugs were something that "bad" people did. But the DARE program taught me that wasn't true. I learned that drug use was actually a fairly popular activity. I mean, if it wasn't so popular, well the hell would they have to go through all this trouble to stop it?

    And all my personal opinions aside, all you have to do to see that these programs are flawed is to take a look at just how effective they are. Do they really keep our kids from using drugs? Well, the answer to that question would appear to be a resounding "no". Analysis of virtually every "DARE program" seems to show the same result - That the results are inconclusive. It really doesn't appear to have any effect. Now, you know that the people compiling the results tried everything possible to try to prove that these program really do work. The fact that even they couldn't show any results is enough proof for me -- and should be enough for everybody else - to prove that these programs simply don't work.

    All of the Anti-drug advertising on TV has the exact same effect as programs such as DARE - none - except that they cost a hell of a lot more money. Billions and Billions of dollars are paid to the media for what?... Propaganda? And worse than that, propaganda that doesn't even appear to work? In fact, it would almost appear to have the opposite of its intended effect! The primary side effect of the barrage of anti-drug advertising that we see everyday is that drugs become part of everyday life. Not a day goes by that a school kid can avoid thinking about drugs. They see it on the television before they go to school. They see it on the billboards on the way to school. They see it on the "Drug-free-zone" signs outside of the school. They see it on the billboards in the hall. They hear it from their teachers -- and they hear it from that nice policeman that preaches to them the evils of drugs. The three "R"s have been replaced by the three "D"s. Drugs, Drugs, and Drugs.

    Any advertiser will tell you that that the primary goal of any advertising campaign is to get people to think about your product... and the more they think about it, the better. It doesn't matter if the advertising is good or bad, or if it tells you anything about the product at all.... all that matters is that people are thinking about it.

    Remember those Mentos commercials? They were horrible! Everybody HATED them! Yet, sales of Mentos in the US increased three-fold. Nobody will want a product if they don't know about it. And the fact is that marijuana didn't start to become popular until the government acknowledged it by making it illegal. Before that time, it was viewed in the same way modern people view smoking banana peels or toad skins.... Everybody knew that it was intoxicating, but most people didn't really care.


    During the first part of this century, any 10-year-old could walk into any corner drug store and purchase heroin. But the thing is... they didn't! Virtually nobody did! I'm sure everybody had heard of heroin by then, but it wasn't something people thought about every day. However, if you were to go back to 1910 and launch a massive campaign "drug education" program on the scale we have today, you would see a significant increase in drug use.

    Drug advertising causes a person to think about drugs everyday, which naturally causes more people to become more interested in it. The prohibition on drugs has not done anything to reduce drug use, it has only caused drugs to become as integral part of our society. I mean, if I launched a huge advertising campaign against any activity,(Let's say, injecting milk or Drinking motor oil), I guarantee that there would be an increase in those activities, simply because nobody ever really thought to try those things before. Drug use is no different.




    The obvious solution to this problem is to end the War on Drugs. That is easy to say, but harder to actually implement. Certain problems would arise if all drugs were simply legalized.

    Our society has become a "drug culture", so simply opening the floodgates and allowing anybody to purchase any drug at any time might result in chaos, and a rampant cry for the return of prohibition. So the question is, "How do we end the war on drugs without increasing drug use?"

    Actually. There are several questions we need to ask :



    If drugs are legalized, somebody is going to sell them. So we must decide how they will be regulated. The answer seems pretty obvious for non-addictive drugs such as marijuana. We simply control them in the same way that we presently control alcohol and tobacco... Sell licenses to bars that want to sell it, and tax the hell out of it.

    But what about more dangerous non-addictive drugs such as LSD? The major problem with public use of LSD is that the trip last way too long. If a person took LSD at a bar, they would be high for at least 10 hours. Nobody would voluntarily stay at a bar for that long, and would end up driving home while they were still tripping... which is definitely a BIG problem.

    The options vary. We could handle it like alcohol, which would make it easy for people of legal age to obtain ... Or, we could make it more difficult to buy by only permitting "mail-order" sales, which would allow companies to see exactly how much each person is using. This would allow them to place a limit on sales to a single person. But in general, I feel that these drugs should be legalized, but should have their use restricted to "private" locations.

    And there is an even bigger question ... Heroin and other highly-addictive drugs. These drugs present a BIG problem. Even if you legalize them, any private company that actually tried to sell them would find themselves in legal nightmare similar to what tobacco companies are facing right now. People would be suing them left and right, and no company would want to put up with that, no matter how attractive the profits.

    And if private companies are unable to sell these drugs, that only leaves one option... the government. As much as I hate the idea of the government feeding its population addictive drugs, this might be the only way. There are already similar systems in place around the world. Most European countries have tested such a system, and in general it appears to work fairly well. There are few problems, of course. For one, the system creates some of the worst welfare cases the world has ever seen. Not only do these heroin-addicts receive free smack, they get a welfare check that permits them to get by without having a job. Basically, they are allowed to just sit around and get high all day.

    But of course, this isn't very different from what these people would be doing without government assistance. They would still be getting high all day, and would still would be able to pay their rent without working - They would simply have to steal cars or prostitute themselves instead. But, the government does control their dosages, and tries to wean them of the stuff with methadone.

    Although I find the thought of the government drugging their welfare recipients fairly repulsive, I accept this a far better alternative than the current system. A drugged-up welfare case cost the government far less than a drug-war prisoner.

    And, this system would only apply to drug-addicts, not drug-users. For the people that use cannabis, not much will change. They will continue to use drugs just as they are now, except that they won't need to go through thugs to obtain their smoke. Life will continue on as normal, except that the rest of us will no longer be harassed by drug-pushers or by the police.


    But most importantly, drug-legalization won't cost the rest of us our freedoms. It will return our freedoms to us. And not just to the people that use drugs, but to all of us.


    Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    02-01-2001
    C.S.




    Other links

    NORML

    Libertarian Party

    Drug War Facts

    The November Coalition

    Drug War Chronical

    The Cops' Share (Assest Forfiture)

    Drug Sense

    Drug Action Network

    Common Sense For Drug Policy

    DrugWar.com

    The Media Awareness Project

    Drug War Prisoners

    A Drug War Carol

    Drug Policy Alliance

    Drug Crazy

    The American Drug War:
    Anatomy of a Futile and Costly Police Action


    “The Emperor Wears No Clothes”, by Jack Herer





    Home