Posted by
Playful Walrus on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:28:28 PM
Are there criminals because there is crime, or is there crime because there are criminals?
Advocates for “drug” legalization claim that one of the benefits of such a move would be that mobsters, gang bangers, smugglers, and other criminals would no longer thrive on that black market business.
Let’s assume that the claim would come true.
Then what?
Do all of those criminals who are suddenly no longer criminals under the law simply become lawful providers of those drugs, or settle down with other legitimate jobs?
Somehow, I doubt that. That would involve completely changing their lifestyles and their relationships to authority and society. More likely, smugglers would continue to smuggle. Instead of cocaine, they’d smuggle people (like terrorists and slaves), banned or controlled weapons, exotic animals, counterfeit money, and counterfeit goods. Gang bangers would still be ruining lives and neighborhoods committing plenty of crime. Mobsters have done a great job making money off of legal businesses through extortion, racketeering, etc.
As far as the current providers going legit in their trade – operating on the black market is far different from having your business subjected to restrictions and regulations and taxes from all levels of government, especially if you’re going to be making less of a profit. Those who thrive on the thrill or freedom of being an outlaw or operating on the black market aren’t just going to settle down and become upstanding citizens.
Then there are the addicts. They’d stop committing other crimes if only they could legally buy drugs, we’re told. Really? If drugs would be regulated by prescription, addicts would still have to commit crimes to get more than prescribed.
What about liability issues for the prescribing doctors, the pharmacists, the insurance companies, and the manufacturing companies? Would they be eager to follow in the footsteps of Big Tobacco? Would the FDA be exposed to lawsuits? Would the ACLU harass employers for firing a cocaine snorter? Would the employer have to wait for the snorter to kill someone and bring wrongful death lawsuits upon the employer before firing them?
One of the things I like about drug laws is that they help to reveal some poor decision makers. All other things being equal, I’m going to have more respect, trust, and admiration for someone who doesn’t try drugs to begin with than someone who does. If you’re foolish enough to abuse yourself that way and you are either so far gone into it or careless enough to get caught, prosecuted, and convicted of it, that says something about you.
Another good thing about drug laws is that they can be used as a tool by the loved ones of addicts to get that addict some help.
While prisons might be less crowded if drugs were legalized, I’d rather have druggies behind bars than driving next to me.
Finally, if drugs were legalized and thus became cheaper and less stigmatized, would more people do drugs? Our history with alcohol says yes. While alcohol consumption continued under prohibition, it was at a reduced rate and didn’t return to pre-prohibition levels until decades after the prohibition was lifted.
Having said all of that, I’m not definitively and firmly opposed to legalization. I simply have the concerns cited above. Perhaps we would be better off if the drugs had never been criminalized in the first place. Maybe. But the reality is - they were. American society has developed for generations with that reality in place. Changing it now may have negative consequences that outweigh the possible positive results.
While I’m not an active advocate on either side of this issue, I will continue to avoid using illegal drugs and discourage the people in my life from using them, even if they do become legal someday.