# War on Drugs Redux



## Nomad (Jun 3, 2010)

Interesting article:

A few of the relevant sections:


> The review clearly demonstrates that the astronomical profits created by drug prohibition drive organized crime and its related violence. Several studies included in the report suggested that law enforcement's removal of key players from the drug trade, such as Christopher Coke, only creates power vacuums that lead to violent and deadly competition. Many victims are not involved in the drug trade, as today's civilian deaths in Mexico, the U.S. and Kingston's slums illustrate.





> From a scientific perspective, we must accept that law enforcement will never meaningfully reduce the flow of drugs. Economists know that the drug seizures we see over and over again as part of police photo ops have the perverse effect of making it that much more profitable for someone else to sell drugs. The laws of supply and demand have simply overwhelmed police efforts. With young people reporting that obtaining illicit drugs is easier than getting alcohol or tobacco, the situation could not get much worse.



I happen to agree with many of these sentiments; what we've been doing hasn't been working, and is a problem we could throw endless amounts of money at (meanwhile taking it away from areas that need it desperately, like our failing school system) without seeing any major effects.  Our prisons are filled to bursting with loads of people convicted of minor drug-related crimes while violent criminals and sex-offenders get reduced sentences in many cases to balance the books. 

The approaches in Portugal, the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent, Canada in decriminalizing simple possession and instead considering it a health issue seem to be having a positive effect overall, and certainly bear a closer look.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2010)

Nomad said:


> I happen to agree with many of these sentiments; what we've been doing hasn't been working, and is a problem we could throw endless amounts of money at (meanwhile taking it away from areas that need it desperately, like our failing school system) without seeing any major effects.  Our prisons are filled to bursting with loads of people convicted of minor drug-related crimes while violent criminals and sex-offenders get reduced sentences in many cases to balance the books.
> 
> The approaches in Portugal, the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent, Canada in decriminalizing simple possession and instead considering it a health issue seem to be having a positive effect overall, and certainly bear a closer look.



Let's try it from another perspective...

Take your argument, and substitute 'child prostitution' for 'illegal drugs'.

Astronomical profits generated by it being illegal?  Yep.
Organized crime and violence?  Yep.
Law enforcement unable to stem the tide?  Yep.
What we've been doing not working?  Yep.
Takes away from enforcement in other areas? Yep.

So perhaps child prostitution, kiddie pr0n and the like should all be legalized?

What you're using for logic is a _"we cannot win, so let's give in"_ approach.  We may not be able to win, or there may be other ways to win that we have not yet discovered.  But in any case, legalization because we can't seem to stop people doing it seems to me to be a poor reason.

People just keep cheating on their taxes.  They keep speeding.  They keep not pulling over for fire trucks and not stopping for school buses.  Let's just make it all legal.

As it happens, I make use of a similar argument in favor of changing our immigration laws; but with one twist.  My argument is not that we should change the immigration laws because we can't enforce them (which is true, I believe) but that we should change the laws because securing our borders is a higher priority which should override the illegal immigration problem.  The drug-legalization movement could also use this argument, except that far fewer drug dealers cross the border than illegal migrant workers.  In fact, one of my reasons for favoring immigration reform is so that we *can* catch drug smugglers crossing the border more easily.

I won't get into my personal feelings about drugs, I've expressed them before.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Let's try it from another perspective...
> 
> Take your argument, and substitute 'child prostitution' for 'illegal drugs'.
> 
> ...


 
Drug _use_ is a victimless crime, unlike child prostitution.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 3, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Drug _use_ is a victimless crime, unlike child prostitution.


 
Until someone commits a crime to support their habit.  Call me cynical, I don't see junkies getting up to find a job just because their habit is legal now.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Until someone commits a crime to support their habit. Call me cynical, I don't see junkies getting up to find a job just because their habit is legal now.


 
Make the habit legal, and make it affordable. In the case of "junkies," make it a public health issue, and they get prescriptions for nice, cheap legal heroin.

They might even get covered by Medicaid, just like methadone.

No need for excessive money, no need for crime-ever heard of a wino pulling a burglary for a bottle of Thunderbird? :lfao:


----------



## chaos1551 (Jun 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Take your argument, and substitute 'child prostitution' for 'illegal drugs'.



How about we substitute 'jaywalking' for 'illegal drugs'?  

It's all about which crime is worse.  Who decides which is worse?  It's under debate.  Semantics won't help us.  

I think we can win the drug war through decriminalization.  Sure helped curb alcohol related crime after the prohibition.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 3, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Make the habit legal, and make it affordable. In the case of "junkies," make it a public health issue, and they get prescriptions for nice, cheap legal heroin.


 
They're not going to make it affordable, they're going to tax the **** out of it just like they do with alcohol and cigarettes. Unless you propose to subsidize their addiction?



elder999 said:


> They might even get covered by Medicaid, just like methadone.


 
...oh. I see. There's really nothing that you wouldn't mind spending other people's money on, is there?



elder999 said:


> No need for excessive money, no need for crime-ever heard of a wino pulling a burglary for a bottle of Thunderbird? :lfao:


 
Actually, I have. Worked at a Stab-n-Grab out of high school. Got robbed several times, usually by people running out the door with a bottle of T-Bird, Wild Irish Rose or (ew) Boone's Farm in each hand. One time our assistant manager investigated a noise in the cooler and discovered a guy huddled under all his coats, shivering and drinking. Apparently he snuck in while she was replacing the syrup canister in the soda fountain. :rofl:


----------



## tellner (Jun 3, 2010)

*Cory*, people commit crimes to buy hemp because it's illegal. The only reason the price is higher than gold is the prohibition. Why do you think it's called "weed".

*Bill*, 
Your analogy is false.Child prostitution involves the enslavement and exploitation of children who can neither give consent nor leave their servitude. Allowing adults to smoke hemp involves no such coercion or loss of personal freedom.

You could say the same thing about legal beer with a lot more justification. Hemp was made illegal for two reasons. Hearst feared his Weyerhauser investments and needed a moral panic to sell papers. A lot of Prohibition cops were in danger of being forced to find honest work. 

The crime, the high prices, the ruined lives are all because of law enforcement and particularly the mindless, counter-productive idiocy of the "War" on drugs. Portugal has decreased drug use by mandating treatment and completely decriminalizing use. Prohibition undeniably increased alcohol use in the US. c.f. _The Poisoner's Handbook_ for the most recent account of the story.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2010)

chaos1551 said:


> How about we substitute 'jaywalking' for 'illegal drugs'?



No, let's address mine first.  Why not legalize child prostitution or kiddie pr0n?  The argument is the same; legalize it because we can't enforce the laws we have against it, it creates criminal enterprises, violence results, etc.



> It's all about which crime is worse.  Who decides which is worse?  It's under debate.  Semantics won't help us.



It's not about which crime is worse, and it's not about semantics.  It's about laws, which are expressions of popular will.  Laws are illegal drugs are not there because 'drugs are bad' but because people want them to be illegal.  Same for child prostitution, etc.  It's about what we as a people want, not the relative badness of them.



> I think we can win the drug war through decriminalization.  Sure helped curb alcohol related crime after the prohibition.



That's the same argument; it will cut crime if we just legalize it.  Sure, and there won't be much of a problem with murder if we give out prizes for it; since it won't be a crime anymore we can declare victory.

Yes, the ending of Prohibition ended the problem with illegal booze-smuggling.  The second part of that statement is that it expressed the will of the people, who were very much against Prohibition at that time, enough so to pass an amendment to the Constitution nullifying the one that made it illegal in the first place.

Drugs?  No such public support for legalization, especially of the harder drugs.  We've seen broad-based support for the legalization of 'medical marijuana', but that seems to be about as far as it goes.  Few want crack, coke, or heroin legalized.  That's a vital part of the reason why we should not simply legalize it because it's hard to enforce.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2010)

tellner said:


> *Bill*,
> Your analogy is false.Child prostitution involves the enslavement and exploitation of children who can neither give consent nor leave their servitude. Allowing adults to smoke hemp involves no such coercion or loss of personal freedom.



Nope, my analogy is fine.  I am not comparing RESULTS or DAMAGE or RELATIVE MORAL MERITS of the two.  I am comparing apples with apples.  The argument given is that drugs should be legalized BECAUSE the laws cannot be enforced - period.  If that argument is valid, then so are ALL laws which are difficult or impossible to enforce.

Therefore, if you accept that difficulty of enforcement is a valid reason to abandon a law, you must logically support child prostitution and kiddie pr0n, etc.  If you reject the notion that difficulty of enforcement is a valid reason to legalize, then you're with me - the argument is invalid.



> You could say the same thing about legal beer with a lot more justification.


Nope.  Beer is something the people want and specifically made legal after making it illegal.  Not so with smack, coke, crack, or kiddie pr0n.



> Hemp was made illegal for two reasons. Hearst feared his Weyerhauser investments and needed a moral panic to sell papers. A lot of Prohibition cops were in danger of being forced to find honest work.


Doesn't matter.  It's illegal because the people continue to want it to be illegal.  In places where that is no longer true, the people are taking steps to legalize it for various purposes.

And that is NOT the argument that was given.  The argument was that drugs should be legalized because the laws against them cannot be enforced.



> The crime, the high prices, the ruined lives are all because of law enforcement and particularly the mindless, counter-productive idiocy of the "War" on drugs. Portugal has decreased drug use by mandating treatment and completely decriminalizing use. Prohibition undeniably increased alcohol use in the US. c.f. _The Poisoner's Handbook_ for the most recent account of the story.


Portugal is free to do as they wish.  So are the people of the USA.  So far, they reject the notion of legalizing most currently-illegal drugs.  That's the only reason necessary for them to remain illegal.  Not being able to enforce the laws is not a valid reason to legalize them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Drug _use_ is a victimless crime, unlike child prostitution.



The type of crime doesn't really enter into it.  I compare only the statements made by the O/P in this case:_ "I happen to agree with many of these sentiments; what we've been doing hasn't been working, and is a problem we could throw endless amounts of money at (meanwhile taking it away from areas that need it desperately, like our failing school system) without seeing any major effects. Our prisons are filled to bursting with loads of people convicted of minor drug-related crimes while violent criminals and sex-offenders get reduced sentences in many cases to balance the books."

_The argument is common, but clearly flawed.  Let me break it down:



It begins with an assertion that laws against X are widely ignored.
It asserts that organized criminal activity exists precisely because X is a crime.
It appeals to an economic point of view by pointing out the cost of keeping prisoners imprisoned, and the fact that the prisons are overcrowded already.
It appeals to the law-and-order point of view by pointing out that when police officers are tasked with enforcing this particular law, they are taken away from other duties, which involve protecting citizens against violent crime.
This is nothing more than an equation.  If true, then I can crank in any value for X and the equation must still be true.  If it is not true for any value of X, then it is not true at all.

Getting to your assertion, that drug use is harmless, I answer that it doesn't matter one whit.  If crack builds strong bones 12 ways, and the people want it to be illegal, then that is a good enough reason for it to remain so and for the laws against it to be enforced.

Our nation is not built on laws because they are morally good or bad or damaging or healthy (although we seem to be moving that way in some areas).  Our laws may have such a component, but that is not why they remain laws.  They are built upon a framework that begins with existing common law, adds to it the Constitution and Amendments, and then the laws expressed by the People by the proxy of our elected representatives.  If we decide, en masse, that hang-gliding is a very bad thing and must be outlawed, then the relative harmlessness of hang-gliding has *@-all to do with it.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Nope, my analogy is fine. I am not comparing RESULTS or DAMAGE or RELATIVE MORAL MERITS of the two. I am comparing apples with apples. The argument given is that drugs should be legalized BECAUSE the laws cannot be enforced - period. If that argument is valid, then so are ALL laws which are difficult or impossible to enforce..


 
In my case, Bill, it has nothing to do with enforcement.

It has everything to do with believing that the government has no business controlling what people can put in their bodies, and those substances-most of them-should be legal.

Once, of course, it was illegal for my wife and I to be married in many states of this country-now that's no longer the law-was it because it was "unenforcable" (it was) or simply because it was _wrong?_

That the enforcement of this particular set of laws costs so much money, and is so completely unsuccesful is only another reason to do make them legal-along with the revenues from taxes others have alluded to, but make no mistake, drug laws should be repealed and/or reformed because they're wrong.

Of course, that won't happen-there's far too much money in imprisoning people, rehab, and property seizures for that ever to come to pass.


----------



## zDom (Jun 3, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Until someone commits a crime to support their habit.  Call me cynical, I don't see junkies getting up to find a job just because their habit is legal now.



No, drug use remains a victimless crime regardless of what a few do to obtain those drugs.

It is ridiculous to legislate against something because SOME might commit other crimes to "support their habit."

Address the criminal acts.

Some people steal or embezzle to buy big screen TVs. Should we make it a crime to view big screen television?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2010)

elder999 said:


> In my case, Bill, it has nothing to do with enforcement.
> 
> It has everything to do with believing that the government has no business controlling what people can put in their bodies, and those substances-most of them-should be legal.



That is the libertarian approach. I tend to agree.  However, before it gets to your mouth, it has to come from somewhere.  If you grow it or produce it yourself for your own use, I have a hard time arguing against you.  But that's a far cry from legalizing currently-illegal drugs.  The importation, the commerce, the production; these are all aspects of life in a society that society *does* have control over, unless one professes less a libertarian viewpoint than an anarchist one.



> Once, of course, it was illegal for my wife and I to be married in many states of this country-now that's no longer the law-was it because it was "unenforcable" (it was) or simply because it was _wrong?_



Ah, the Rand Paul trap.  It was neither one, of course.  It is no longer the law because such laws were violations of basic civil liberties.  Enforcement didn't enter into it; nor did the morality of it.



> That the enforcement of this particular set of laws costs so much money, and is so completely unsuccesful is only another reason to do make them legal-along with the revenues from taxes others have alluded to, but make no mistake, drug laws should be repealed and/or reformed because they're wrong.



Neither the cost nor the relative moral aspects of the law have anything to do with why such laws should remain in force.  The desire of a society for such things to remain illegal (so long as no one's civil liberties are violated, the core of our legal system) is sufficient reason.  In fact, it's the *only* reason that can be given.  Courts debate no moral questions, nor the costs of enforcement, when determining a law's Constitutionality.



> Of course, that won't happen-there's far too much money in imprisoning people, rehab, and property seizures for that ever to come to pass.



The will of the people notwithstanding, eh?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2010)

zDom said:


> No, drug use remains a victimless crime regardless of what a few do to obtain those drugs.



So what?  The idea that a crime should not be a crime because there is no victim is ludicrous.  In the USA, we hold that laws which pass Constitutional muster and are specific are valid.  How harmless the activity banned is does not enter into it.



> It is ridiculous to legislate against something because SOME might commit other crimes to "support their habit."



It is quite sufficient, on the other hand, to legislate against something because the citizens wish it to be illegal.



> Address the criminal acts.



Address the will of the people.



> Some people steal or embezzle to buy big screen TVs. Should we make it a crime to view big screen television?



California has banned certain big-screen TV's because of their use of electricity, I read recently.  A victimless crime, don't you think?  Surely Californians have no right to run their state as they see fit, so long as the behavior hurts no one?

Communities form governments so that they can create societies that reflect their values, their desires, their goals.  If they don't want crack, coke, or heroin on their streets, then they have every right to ban it.


----------



## zDom (Jun 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If we decide, en masse, that hang-gliding is a very bad thing and must be outlawed, then the relative harmlessness of hang-gliding has *@-all to do with it.



Protecting individuals and minorities from the tyranny of the majority/tyranny of the masses (or, "the violence of majority faction," as it is called in Federalist 10) is an important piece of the foundation of this nation and others that profess to be free societies.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, brother.


----------



## zDom (Jun 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We've seen broad-based support for the legalization of 'medical marijuana', but that seems to be about as far as it goes.



We'll see in November with the California initiative.

It seems to me that your Reefer Madness-inspired intolerant view of recreational drug use is on its way out, Bill.

November will tell us if that is going to be sooner or later.


----------



## chaos1551 (Jun 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, let's address mine first.  Why not legalize child prostitution or kiddie pr0n?  The argument is the same; legalize it because we can't enforce the laws we have against it, it creates criminal enterprises, violence results, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bill, prohibition of drugs fits the definition of backfire regulation.  The law arguably makes things much worse than not having the law.  It's up for debate, much like the backfire regulation of firearms.  So, yes, abolishing the drug prohibition very well could be considered a win against the war on drugs, not just because it's difficult to enforce, but more because the benefits of not having the prohibition outweigh the benefits of having it.  I doubt one could say the same of child porn or murder laws.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 3, 2010)

zDom said:


> We'll see in November with the California initiative.
> 
> It seems to me that your Reefer Madness-inspired intolerant view of recreational drug use is on its way out, Bill.
> 
> November will tell us if that is going to be sooner or later.


 
And, Californians being Californians, they'll immediately call for a ban for smoking it pretty much anywhere.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2010)

zDom said:


> Protecting individuals and minorities from the tyranny of the majority/tyranny of the masses (or, "the violence of majority faction," as it is called in Federalist 10) is an important piece of the foundation of this nation and others that profess to be free societies.
> 
> Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, brother.



Well, we're back here again.  Most US states have provisions for direct democracy in the form of plebiscites;  regardless of whether one likes them or one does not.  They are legal and they represent the law as directly expressed by the people.

However, I did say 'by proxy' by which I meant to encompass in a few words the basic idea that the people express their will through their elected representatives and the legislative process.

Life, liberty, and all that jazz is very important, which is why laws have to meet the standards of our core document, the Constitution.  If they do, then that's that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2010)

zDom said:


> We'll see in November with the California initiative.
> 
> It seems to me that your Reefer Madness-inspired intolerant view of recreational drug use is on its way out, Bill.
> 
> November will tell us if that is going to be sooner or later.



I have no doubt you're right, but the pendulum of public opinion swings both ways.  I am old enough to remember the various decriminalization laws and "legalize it" movements of the 1970's, which had more steam than today's lackluster medical pot movement.  However, what happens, happens.  None of which addresses my point - that the argument that illegal drugs (and not just pot) should be legalized because the laws against them are impossible to enforce is a worthless argument.  I still declare it, nobody has been able to gainsay it so far.  Ya'll are just twisting in the breeze of my incredible and amazing logic.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2010)

chaos1551 said:


> Bill, prohibition of drugs fits the definition of backfire regulation.  The law arguably makes things much worse than not having the law.



It does not matter.  What makes things worse or better has nothing to do with the basic and fundamental right of the people to order society as they wish, so long as the core principles of the rights of our citizens are not violated.



> It's up for debate, much like the backfire regulation of firearms.  So, yes, abolishing the drug prohibition very well could be considered a win against the war on drugs, not just because it's difficult to enforce, but more because the benefits of not having the prohibition outweigh the benefits of having it.  I doubt one could say the same of child porn or murder laws.


There are no provisions in US law for weighing the legality of a law based upon the relative benefits versus the ills of its existence.  If it is not unconstitutional, and it expresses the will of Congress or the People, it is legal.  The 'war on drugs' is a phrase.  Changing how you define 'victory' in that sense changes nothing; there is no basis for changing the laws so that you can declare a 'victory' in a war that exists only in terminology.

It continues to amaze me how many people seem to think that a law ought to exist or not because of the 'goodness' of it.  While lawmakers and citizens may consider moral aspects or health aspects of various laws, the point of them is not that they are good or bad, that they result in healthy behavior or good citizenship, but that they reflect the will of the people and do not violate the Constitution.  That's all.

Oatmeal is, I am told, much better for me than packaged cereal.  If your logic were to be followed, I should be forced to eat oatmeal for breakfast.  And indeed, if the people were to pass such a law, and it did not violate my rights, I would indeed be required to eat oatmeal for breakfast.  But here's the catch; I would *not* be being forced to eat oatmeal for breakfast *because it is good for me*, but *because the people want it* to be the law.  Goodness and badness are simply irrelevant. All that matters is the vote.  

We mistake the declared or presumed intent behind society's laws with the reason why they are legal.  They may be proposed, discussed, and passed based on the intent of society to cure some social ill or address some moral turpitude, but they exist and are enforced because they reflect the will of the people.  If the people were evil, then the laws would reflect that and be equally valid.

Society does not want heroin (or pot, or speed, or coke, or ecstasy or whatever) to be legal.  That is all the justification that is required.  Any lengthy diatribe about how heroin (etc) builds strong bones 12 ways means precisely nothing.


----------



## chaos1551 (Jun 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It does not matter.  What makes things worse or better has nothing to do with the basic and fundamental right of the people to order society as they wish, so long as the core principles of the rights of our citizens are not violated.
> 
> There are no provisions in US law for weighing the legality of a law based upon the relative benefits versus the ills of its existence.  If it is not unconstitutional, and it expresses the will of Congress or the People, it is legal.  The 'war on drugs' is a phrase.  Changing how you define 'victory' in that sense changes nothing; there is no basis for changing the laws so that you can declare a 'victory' in a war that exists only in terminology.
> 
> ...



Laws can be changed.  That's my only point.  I've presented my reason why I think the drug laws should be changed.  I'm done.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 3, 2010)

zDom said:


> Protecting individuals and minorities from the tyranny of the majority/tyranny of the masses (or, "the violence of majority faction," as it is called in Federalist 10) is an important piece of the foundation of this nation and others that profess to be free societies.
> 
> Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, brother.



Sorry, but I think you're misunderstanding what was said.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Ah, the Rand Paul trap. It was neither one, of course. It is no longer the law because such laws were violations of basic civil liberties. Enforcement didn't enter into it; nor did the morality of it.


 
Prohibiting the ingestion of substances by making them illegal is a violation of basic civil liberties.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 3, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Drug _use_ is a victimless crime, unlike child prostitution.


Exactly. You can't just substitute words like Glenn Beck and expect us to follow.
Sean


----------



## Nomad (Jun 3, 2010)

I'm going to highlight this part again, just because:



> With young people reporting that obtaining illicit drugs is easier than getting alcohol or tobacco



Alcohol and tobacco are harder for underage people to get their hands on specifically because they are legal and regulated.  If marijuana and other drugs were to be sold legally, then similar limits can more easily be enforced, ultimately keeping more drugs out of the hands of kids (where they arguably have their biggest impact and cause the most damage).

This is in addition to the massive benefits from them being a viable source of taxation, as opposed to the near bottomless pit of spending currently being done to (unsuccessfully) prevent their manufacture, transport, and sale.

Bill, your arguments, while passionate, are largely irrelevant.  You are basically stating that the laws are the laws, and thus must be enforced no matter what.  

Um... no.  Laws are changed all the time.  California today outlawed plastic bags (starting Jan 2012).  This is new.  Is it what a majority of the people want?  I don't know, but I'd love to see the polls on this one.  It was pushed through the legislature largely by environmentalists.  

Keeping a long-standing policy in place, which is clearly not working, and which is to a large extent funding criminal organizations and fueling violence around the country and around the world is not smart.  Changing that policy to an alternative measure that has proven positive effects may be.  It's not breaking the law, it's changing the way we view the problem.

Prohibition is a failed experiment.  It is time, IMO, to start looking at approaches which have worked in other countries to lower the crime and violence associated with drugs.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It does not matter.  What makes things worse or better has nothing to do with the basic and fundamental right of the people to order society as they wish, so long as the core principles of the rights of our citizens are not violated.



This.

I am with Bill on the issue. The thing that I see wrong with the "law creation" system though is how we squeeze in these "special interest" laws all the time. Not to minimize the pain and suffering of the people involved, but it seems like every time some poor child dies or gets killed, the parents want to sponsor some new law in the childs name. Some of these laws are good IMO and necessary but others seem redundant in light of existing laws that are seldom enforced. These laws seem to have little to do with the popular will and more to do with the media and PR.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It does not matter. What makes things worse or better has nothing to do with the basic and fundamental right of the people to order society as they wish, so long as the core principles of the rights of our citizens are not violated.
> 
> Society does not want heroin (or pot, or speed, or coke, or ecstasy or whatever) to be legal. That is all the justification that is required. Any lengthy diatribe about how heroin (etc) builds strong bones 12 ways means precisely nothing.


 

And, I'd remind you-_again_-that there was a time when "society" did not want "inter-racial" marriages, or for Jews and Catholics to have the vote-they were denied voting rights in most of the states until about 1813....or for blacks to have voting rights (not even going to go there)....or for American Indians to have _any_ rights.......


----------



## tellner (Jun 3, 2010)

elder999 said:


> And, I'd remind you-_again_-that there was a time when "society" did not want "inter-racial" marriages, or for Jews and Catholics to have the vote-they were denied voting rights in most of the states until about 1813....or for blacks to have voting rights (not even going to go there)....or for American Indians to have _any_ rights.......



And it was well into the twentieth century before people of Asian descent born in this country could legally become citizens. And White women who had sex with Asian men could lose their citizenship for it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Prohibiting the ingestion of substances by making them illegal is a violation of basic civil liberties.



I disagree, and so have the courts, to date.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 4, 2010)

Equating denying people the same rights as others due to their race seems a bit of a red herring when we are talking about a legal decision that effects everybody regardless of race or sex.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 4, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Equating denying people the same rights as others due to their race seems a bit of a red herring when we are talking about a legal decision that effects everybody regardless of race or sex.


 

I'm not doing that-I'm pointing out that a society's _desires and beliefs _aren't the ultimate standard of what is or should be legal.


----------



## tellner (Jun 4, 2010)

elder999 said:


> I'm not doing that-I'm pointing out that a society's _desires and beliefs _aren't the ultimate standard of what is or should be legal.


 
Dunno if I'd put it that way. The law defines what is legal. The law is made by the _desires and beliefs_ of the _*polis*_ if not the _*demos*_.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 4, 2010)

tellner said:


> Dunno if I'd put it that way. The law defines what is legal. The law is made by the _desires and beliefs_ of the _*polis*_ if not the _*demos*_.


 

"not the *ultimate* standard."


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 4, 2010)

elder999 said:


> I'm not doing that-I'm pointing out that a society's _desires and beliefs _aren't the ultimate standard of what is or should be legal.



I beg to differ.  A society's _"desires and beliefs"_ as you put it are indeed the ultimate standard for what **is** legal when they are expressed through the legislative process in the USA; with the caveat I continue to mention, which is that such laws must still pass Constitutional muster if challenged via the judiciary branch.

As to what _"should be legal,"_ that's a different kettle of fish altogether.  Now we veer into the realm of morals, social standards, the current zeitgeist, and so on.

You have brought up the issue of miscegenation, so let's visit that for a moment.  In many US states, it was formerly illegal for people of different races to marry.  I will stipulate that such laws were unequivocally immoral, wrong, bad, and evil.  Please understand that I do not defend them in any way except one; their legality at the time.  I do not equate 'lawful' with 'right' in this sense.

It is clear that historically, many of the white citizens of some US states wished to deny certain rights to black citizens, and especially to protect themselves from what they felt were the dangers of interracial marriage (not all miscegenation laws were about blacks and whites; California had a law forbidding Asian and white marriages until 1948).  Did they have the legal right to enact such laws?  Yes, unless such laws contravened civil rights defined either in their own state Constitutions or the Constitution of the USA as applied to the states via the 14th Amendment's 'incorporation clause' (which did not start until the 1890's).

As we know, Loving v Virginia ended all legal anti-miscegenation laws in the USA, based on the fact that such laws violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.

That does not mean that such laws were illegal retroactively.  It means that an injustice was done, and it was rectified to the extent that it could be in law.

It did not argue that such laws were immoral or evil.  It argued that they violated protected and defined civil rights.

So, were anti-miscegenation laws 'wrong'?  Of course they were; morally I would absolutely agree they were wrong, they were always wrong.  Were they illegal?  Not at the time, but they were found to be later when the Supreme Court finally granted cert to such a case.

Getting back to drugs; societies have the right to order their society as they wish, according to their own standards.  Those standards do not have to pass any moral test of goodness or badness to be lawful, although society may choose to enact rules for moral reasons if they wish.  Morality may inform a society what it *should* do, but it does not inform a society what it *must* do.  If society wishes heroin to remain illegal, and passes laws to ban it, society may do so legally, despite protestations of the relative safety of heroin or the claimed right of a person to ingest whatever substance they wish (until such a civil right is found to exist in the Constitution).

Our own society has placed restrictions upon itself, however; it is not *just* the zeitgeist that rules.  Laws must also pass muster with respect to the civil rights protected by the Constitution and the limits placed on federal authority.  No law in the USA has ever been overturned in court because it is morally wrong; its wrongness or rightness doesn't enter into it (juror nullification may be an exception).


----------

