The Way Things Were

Maryland State Delegate Justin Ross on today's Kojo Nnamdi show proudly proclaimed that we should do "whatever it takes" to curtail the violence and gangs that accompany drug dealing in poor urban neighborhoods. Thus, Ross concluded, we should discourage rap music.

If Ross really wanted to get rid of drug violence, he should look into a cause far more responsible than a catchy tune. Like Prohibition in the 1920s and 30s, the ban on drugs makes the black market (and its related gangs) the only alternative. Without normal police protection, it should be no wonder the drug trade is so violent. Lift the ban on drugs and the drug violence will disappear. If Ross is truly dedicated to "whatever it takes," he should be happy to comply.

The War on Tobacco

People who support the criminalization of drug usage often note that drugs and crime are correlated. They claim the causation is that drugs cause crime. People who support the decriminalization of drugs say the general causality is the illegality of drugs cause crime, not the drugs themselves.

California has recently banned tobacco usage in prisons. This allows for testing on whether tobacco causes crime or the illegality of it does.

There's no if, and or butt about it: California's ban on tobacco in prisons has produced a burgeoning black market behind bars, where a pack of smokes can fetch up to $125.

Prison officials who already have their hands full keeping drugs and weapons away from inmates now are spending time tracking down tobacco smugglers, some of them guards and other prison employees. Fights over tobacco have broken out -- at one Northern California prison guards had to use pepper spray to break up a brawl among 30 inmates.....

At California Correctional Center in Lassen County, officials reported more than 60 tobacco offenses among inmate crews at the institution's work camps in December, Associate Warden Matt Mullin said. The same month, cigarettes triggered a brawl between 30 Hispanic and white inmates on a high-security yard. Follow-up interviews with inmates revealed the dispute was over control of tobacco sales....

At Folsom State Prison, a cook quit last year after he was caught walking onto prison grounds with several plastic bags filled with rolling tobacco in his jacket. He told authorities he was earning more smuggling tobacco -- upwards of $1,000 a week -- than he did in his day job....

Chuck Alexander, executive vice president of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, said lawmakers should either roll back the prohibition or add stronger penalties.

"It didn't do anything but make (tobacco) a lucrative business," he said.

HT: Steven Levitt

A War Against Toasters

Last night, Lou Dobbs was very upset because we are losing the war against drugs. He wrote a commentary last week about how drugs are destroying our society. One has to wonder, then, why the online poll on his website is (currently) running 80% in favor of legalizing marijuana.

It's actually not that hard to see because any "war" against an inanimate object will either be won very easily or become something entirely different (and much harder to succeed). Suppose the US declared a war against toasters. Two things might happen. The first is that the American people will rise up against their bread-grilling overlords and smash them to bits. War fought and won. But the second is much more likely: it will stop being a war against toasters and start being a war between toast-lovers and toast-haters.

Some people like doing drugs. A few of them would be better off if they don't, but others are happier despite its costs. We all, in fact, do things that aren't great for us and we wouldn't want people to micromanage our lives. If you are willing to say that certain drugs are unhealthy and should be banned, you must do the same of smoking, drinking and fast food. There's surviving life and there's living life. Let them eat toast.

The Thin Blue (Magic) Line

I had a conversation with a friend of mine the other day about the war on drugs. He strongly supported legalizing marijuana but backed the government ban on "harder" drugs such as cocaine and heroin. In fact, the only drug he seems in favor of bringing back into the private sector was weed. I asked him why.

"Because they're dangerous," he said. I reminded him that all drugs are dangerous, including legal ones like tobacco and alcohol. "But these are really dangerous." There is no doubt of this: heroin, for example, is incredibly addictive and dangerous, far more than, say, alcohol. But alcohol and heroin are not inherently different; heroin is just more of the same. So if one is okay and one isn't then there must exist a line that, once passed, makes it social optimal to illegalize. So where's the line?

I have not yet recieved an answer to this question that reflects current laws and I doubt I ever will (though the reader is welcome to try). The best boundry I can come up with is "when the drug starts to have an overall negative impact on the person's life." Heroin is more likely to cross that boundry than alcohol, but it ultimately depends on the person. Since an individual is the foremost expert on themselves (followed by friends and family), and people are all very, very different, a blanket law that treats everyone as the same will punish some unjustly.

Everyone has their own personal boundries, a fact that these laws ignore. To assume individuals are the same is social alchemy; I don't believe in magic.

I Want a New Drug

When I start playing a particularly good computer game, I can spend hours upon hours playing with little notice of the time passed (Civilization and World of Warcraft come to mind). These games are few and far between. Only the really good ones are ones I can get lost in but it happens, it my commitment can be debilitating to my normal affairs.

Enter a new study from the UK claiming people can suffer medical addictions to their BlackBerry. Like certain video games, this amazing piece of technology can be all-consuming to the user, especially when employers ask employees use them all the time. There are obvious flaws in suggesting that using technology is addictive in the same way as smoking. There are more subtle flaws in suggesting that employees should be held accountable if it is as bad. But the least noticable consequence legal repercussions could have is discouraging new technology.

People want to pull out their BlackBerries all the time because the devices are so very useful. In fact, people use work as an excuse to use their hand held devices. Claiming the company gets them "hooked" doesn't do the job either. Firms also require everyone to use word processing but we don't see Microsoft Word addictions. Information and communication technology (ICT) addiction only happens when people want to use the device for whatever reason. This requires good devices. The moment we start punishing companies for making their employees use great technology is the moment we just gave someone a reason to invent sub-par devices.

War On Drugs Claims More Victims

A plane carrying an anti-narcotics team overran the airstrip and crashed into several buildings earlier today. Among the dead was a three-year-old Afghan girl; a casualty of war.

The Helmand province, where the crash took place, is a hot bed of opium growing, supplying an astonishing 20% of the world's supply. The area is also claimed by Taliban insurgents who no doubt use the drug moeny to fund rather nasty practices, a fact the DEA surely uses to justify their presence in the area.

I have a better way of tearing apart this source of income for the Taliban: make drugs legal. Suppliers in more suitable countries (closer to the demand, better infrastructure) who don't fund terrorism will pop up and at the least the Taliban will have to lower its prices (if that arm of their organization don't disappear altogether). It's worth noting drug lords want drugs to be illegal, just as the mafia loved prohibition: less competition and more profit. That alone is a good sign to end the war on drugs.

And a little girl just might be alive right now, too.

Get Meth. It Pays.

Sometime ago, Iowa passed a law that made it harder for people to acquire pseudoephedrine in an attempt to prevent people from distracting themselves from their boring Iowa lives with meth.

The other day, the QC Times ran this article that proudly declared Iowa meth labs are down by 75%. Let us side aside that this does not mean Iowans are using less meth. Nor does it mean that this is a permanent change. But I’m more interested in how they concluded this astonishing figure.

It’s not like you can find meth labs in the yellow pages. They are illegal and like all illegal activity, significant time and energy is taken to keep the operations hidden. Surprisingly, police merely compared the 286 labs they knew about in May-July of last year and the 70 that they are sure about today. They can only find 70, thus only 70 exist. How dumb is that?

It seems far more likely that the reason there are fewer known labs is because existing labs went deeper underground until they can perfect a way to get around the law. When they do, don’t be surprised if they charge a higher rate for their goods to compensate for lost business; it’s not like they’ll have a lot of competition.

Someone Get Me Some Advil

I try to imagine how much time and money go into fighting the War on Drugs and every time I do, I get a headache. In this opinion piece from Keeping People Connected News of northeast Indiana, the author trumps a new law the governor recently signed.

The law makes it more difficult for people to legally purchase substances that could be used to make meth. Note I said “legally purchase” and not “obtain.” The new law will certainly makes these components more expensive on the black market, but the kids will still use them.

The law puts limits on the amount of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine a person can purchase in a week, requires identification and creates a database of such people for inspection by police. Civil rights arguments aside, the author makes the counterintuitive claim that this will make the community safer. It seems it is more important to do thousands of background checks—most of which are on senior citizens—than to catch murderers and rapists.

Iowa Senators Geek With Laws

Months ago, I repeated the findings from a Quad City Times article that Iowa was number one in the country for meth incidents, mostly among teens. And like any “scary” statistic, this one grew horns, legs and big, bulging eyes and waddled over to the government.

Iowa’s two senators are pushing for a bill that would force pharmacies to keep decongestants behind the counter because these same medicines can be used to create meth—you know, Satan in a syringe.

Not only will the law make it harder to sell the products and piss off their customers, it won’t do a damn thing in the so-called “War on Drugs.” The same creative, entrepreneurial spirit that generated the television, modern aspirin and frozen food will fashion an alternative. It may be meth without decongestants or it could be a completely new substance altogether. That’s how crack and ecstasy got started.

Parents don’t like their teenagers and college kids taking drugs because they claim they’re too inexperienced, yet these are the same people who are concocting amazing new ways to make complicated substances. If the government would stop changing the recipe, these minds would have the time to work on other things: making plutonium from common household items.

Why Johnny Doesn't Care

I believe there are few issues that capture the title of our blog as nicely as the so called war on drugs. This war, which by the way we are losing and costs taxpayers over $19 billion last year, gains popularity based on a single, flawed premise: people aren’t allowed to do harm to their own bodies. Like laws against suicide, anti-drug laws claim that your life is the responsibility of everyone else. We spend billions to tell people they don’t have the absolute right to use their body as you see fit, even it means harming it.

So that’s why I’m not too upset that my home state, Iowa, ranks number one in the country for meth incidents so far this year, according to yesterday’s Quad City Times, a local newspaper. Of course, that’s not their spin: methamphetamines are evil and the people that use them need to be protected from their own decisions. The article cites medical studies that demonstrate “meth-use in youth [is] ‘scary.’” Like marijuana and alcohol abuse in teens, extensive meth use can cause serious and permanent damage. While I don’t want those crazy kids harming themselves, they are becoming adults and telling them they can’t or shouldn’t do something doesn’t encourage them to start thinking long term on their own. In fact, telling them not to do something only encourages them to do it. That’s what being a teenager is about, challenging the status quo in an effort to find your own way.

Unlike most mainstream political thinkers, I don’t think people are a group of mindless nitwits who need to be herded like sheep. When you treat people as dumb and useless, they get pissed off, not surprisingly, leading to apathy, anger and social and cultural rebellion. While most QC Times readers will conclude that Iowa is filled with teens that shouldn’t think for themselves, I see Iowa filled with too many parents who were brought up thinking their kids shouldn’t think for themselves.