Judith Collins's legacy: image over reality.

A career summarised: no ideas, no direction, no success -- and not one car crushed

What does a career in politics achieve? 

This afternoon Judith Collins will give her valedictory speech in Parliament. Journalists call her career "colourful." They call her "Crusher." Let's review what she's done there over the years.

• she was one of 23 MPs who rented their home to themselves at taxpayers' expense
• she was always ready to give the trough a decent nudge -- costing us in 2023 more than $24,200, made up of more than $6000 for accommodation and just over $18,000 on travel (a massive saving for us from 2009 when her limos and international travel were costing us nearly $200,000)
• need we mention using her position to help the export business for which her husband was a director?
• brought down for the first time (of many) by her own Entitle-itis, one wag suggested 'Trougher' Collins would be a better nick than 'Crusher'
• as Police Minister she continued to ensure that gangs could make decent profits on illegal drugs, while also ensuring police focus more on revenue-gathering than resolving real crimes (cementing an image as tough but crushingly ignorant)
• as the #DirtyPolitics saga did reveal, she maintained a disinterest in ideas, and a consequent obsession with scandals and (ineffective) dirty tricks
• and as Police Minister (her only real job) what did she actually do beyond asset confiscation; suspension of your right to silence; and expanded search and surveillance powers for an extraordinary range of government departments? 
• apart from, of course, bringing in pathetic new laws to "crush" cars instead of simply applying laws already on the books -- the main goal of which "seems to be the generation of positive media coverage for Judith Collins"
• as opposition MP in 2007 she stood up on the steps of Parliament to swear total opposition to the anti-smacking amendment; and then one month later filed obediently into the lobbies to vote for it
• in any competition between real action or spin, it was almost always spin she favoured -- even if it made us less safe
• as Opposition MP in 2005 and desperate to be noticed, she did point out that the Labour Government's Working for Families package is an election bribe paid being paid for with voters' own money -- and then as government MP and minister continued to administer the bribe
• keeping alive the tradition of promising and reneging, Collins was happy to be photographed firing a pistol to court the gun lobby (posting one on her own Facebook page in case you missed it); before  being the only National MP to support banning semi-automatic weapons for civilian purposes, and to boast about it
• as Corrections Minister she drove the reintroduction of private prisons -- for the actual privatisation of force, an unconscionable mixing of the dollar and the gun, with all the temptation to corruption and abuse that goes with it
• as Opposition Leader, Collins did promise the National Party would reverse any attempts by the Ardern government to criminalise speech beyond the threshold of "inciting violence," and warned against ending up with "UK-style hate speech legislation that has ended up with people being criminalised and even imprisoned for foolish and silly comments." All good, except that as (In)Justice Minister she had already drawn up much the same thing under her Harmful Digital Communications Act which hit us in 2015
• as Police Minister in 2016 she did correctly observe that the primary welfare problem to solve is not a poverty of money, the premise behind Labour's Working for Families programme, but "a poverty of ideas, a poverty of parental responsibility, a poverty of love, a poverty of caring. ... it is not just a lack of money, it is primarily a lack of responsibility." And then sat back as her Government and Party kept the policy, and did nothing to arrest the real poverty she'd identified
• And just to be clear: 'Crusher Collins never even crushed one car. Not one. (Only three cars in total were crushed under her legislation, all of which were after she was moved on from the job.) Which could be her real legacy: one of image over reality.

On the credit side, 

• she did, as opposition MP, do a mini-Rosa Parks in walking out when women were refused permission to powhiri except from the back of the room
• she did, as leader, once proclaim National to believe in property rights (despite it being National who introduced the property-rights-destroying RMA) and did accurately point out that the ACT Party did not, saying "there they are arguing for more planners doing more planning rather than actually letting people get on with building their houses"
• she did, as leader of that same National Party, lead it to its second-worst-ever election defeat in 2020, with a 19% swing against
• she was one of the two National MPs who signed up to the bi-partisan accord on housing that helped lower rents and begin the blessed fall in over-priced house prices -- and then disgracefully remained silent has her new boss kicked it into touch, delaying real housing reform now for nearly four years.

Judith Collins arrived in Parliament after a decade in law and (govt-appointed) directorships as a young, fresh-faced MP in 2002, eager to solve the country's problems and to advance her own career. Without any ideas to guide her however she did nothing to solve anything, helped expand the role of government, and spent a life in service to the trough.

So, more exposure than most, but in the end no different to any of the other highly-paid beneficiaries there, really.

And now she's off to another taxpaid trough at the Law Commission ...

Collins in 2002: all promise, no substance

NB: Ele Ludemann posts a contrary assessment ...

“Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments."

“Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. ...

"And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music?”

~ Ludwig Von Mises from his 1949 magnum opus, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (chapter 27, section 6, 'Direct Government Interference with Consumption')

'Trump’s Gestapo is now murdering protestors'

"ICE is Trump's Gestapo or SS. They have no proper function, no constitutional authorisation, and are loyal to Trump personally. ... (My use of 'Gestapo' is figurative. Literally, ICE is the transition to that kind of evil agency.) ...

"In Minneapolis on Wednesday, an ICE agent murdered a woman in her car. ... Trump’s goon squad, created out of xenophobia, shot a non-violent protestor three times in the face, killing her. ...

"The next day another shooting by federal border patrol agents (not ICE) occurred in Portland. ...

"Trump has claimed that the [murdered] victim was part of a 'far Left' network. Even if true, which I've heard no evidence to support, how does that justify killing her? If far Left organisations are protesting ICE and deportations, good for them.

"The two young people shot in Portland were not killed and are in the hospital. The Trump line is that they were part of a criminal drug gang and were here illegally. Drug gangs exist only because of the drug Prohibition. There are no Gatorade gangs, no chocolate bar cartels. Why not? Because these things are not illegalised and their prices are such as earn an average rate of profit. ...

"The [American] public's wrong view of immigrants and wrong ideas regarding drugs are enabling a power-mad low-life to change America into a police state.

"The public's wrong view could not have happened without the destruction of the concept of individual rights. ..."

~ Harry Binswanger from his post 'Trump’s Gestapo is now murdering protestors'

Prohibition works again. Oh, wait ...

"Australia’s illegal tobacco problem has made the proverbial transition from tragedy to farce.

"Illicit, excise-evading cigarettes now comprise half of the cancer-inducing products sold to Australia’s 2.7 million smokers. ...

"We can now conclude that the strategy of taxing and banning nicotine addiction out of existence is a complete failure.

"The result is that organised crime is making about $10 billion a year in revenue. ...

"It means Australia’s criminals are better paid than they have ever been, and the result is showing up in an explosion in both the amount of crime and its brazenness.

"And because the people engaged in this 'industry' are gangsters, competition is not met by price wars and the Competition and Consumer Commission, but by burning your competitor’s business to the ground, or, as happened last week, by allegedly murdering your competitor’s staff. ...

 

"Victoria's coat of arms bears the phrase "Peace and Prosperity", but there's a lot more of the latter in that state these days than the former, and that's not saying much.

"Violent robberies in Victoria have grown by more than 150 per cent since February 2024 due to tobacco-related crime.

"This is much worse than an unintended consequence of the effort to reduce smoking; it is a complete stuff-up."

~ Alan Kohler from his article 'Illegal tobacco is a deadly $10 billion industry wiping out legitimate businesses' [hat tip HomePaddock]

Q: Why do we need the concept of 'citizenship'?

"It's time for Ayn Rand's Power Question: What facts of reality give rise to the need for such a concept as X?

"Here, X is 'citizenship.' Why do we need this concept? Mainly, to determine who can vote. You can probably think of a few perquisites that attend to attaining the status of 'citizen.' But that status has nothing to do with the rights of man.

"The territory within the boundaries of a given country is the area in which its law has jurisdiction, the area in which a specific government, by its apparatus of compulsion, maintains a de jure and de facto monopoly on the use of physical force.

"We used to discuss whether the police, in a voluntarily financed laissez-faire nation, would protect the rights of non-contributors against criminals. The answer was: yes, mainly because the thug who would assault anyone is a threat to everyone, including the contributors. The 'yes' answer follows from practical, moral, and symbolic considerations. Defending the rights and freedom of everyone currently in the country is symbolic of a government devoted to justice.

"The same considerations that require the government protect the rights of non-contributors apply to protecting the rights of non-citizens. ...

"But due process and all the safeguards are there to rein in and make safer everybody who faces the possibility of government interference. The safeguards are there to eliminate arbitrary power.

"Government is potentially a far bigger threat than criminals.

"To introduce a preserve within which government agents can exercise unsupervised power is a threat that dwarfs that of any gang of hoodlums (citizens or non-citizens).

"And this is what we are seeing with Trump's every action—the quest for arbitrary power, unconstrained by checks and balances or anything other than the will of Donald Trump.

"If Trump doesn't have to follow due process in regard to non-citizens, does he have to follow it in regard to determining whether or not the person is a citizen? That's not theoretical. That's today's headlines.

"It can't be repeated too often: the solution to crime is not "screening" or "roundups" of anyone; it's repeal of the drug laws.

"It can't be repeated too often: the solution to lawless behavior by immigrants is not lawless behavior by the police.

"You can avoid a criminal gang; you can even move to a different locale. You can't avoid a SWAT team, the FBI, or any part of the state's apparatus of compulsion and incarceration."

~ Harry Binswanger from his post 'A sense of proportion'

Canada Took the Leap on Legal Weed—Five Years Later, No Meltdown

While some US states have decriminalised recreational cannabis use, Canada fully legalised. Meanwhile, here in NZ, outside medical use the hash remains illegal. 

So how has Canada's legalisation gone? Jeffrey Singer reports in this guest post.

Canada Took the Leap on Legal Weed—Five Years Later, No Meltdown

Critics warned it would lead to widespread abuse. Yet, in October 2018, Canadian lawmakers made Canada the first G7 country to legalise, not merely decriminalise, recreational cannabis.

Researchers at McMaster University have conducted a prospective cohort study involving 1,428 adults in Hamilton, Ontario. Some participants were cannabis consumers before legalisation, while others began using cannabis post-legalisation, between September 2018 and October 2023. Their findings were published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The results:

Cannabis use frequency increased modestly in the 5 years following legalisation, while cannabis misuse decreased modestly.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol, cannabis, and illicit substance use spiked in most countries. Researchers found that after the pandemic’s onset, cannabis misuse (or cannabis use disorder) experienced a sharp reduction and has not yet returned to prior rates. The most significant drop occurred among individuals who were frequent users before legalisation.

Overall, during the study period, individuals who frequently used cannabis before legalisation tended to reduce their consumption, while those who had not previously used cannabis were more likely to increase their use. Misuse declined among all groups that were already using cannabis before legalisation. Researchers observed a rise in misuse among those who had previously abstained—an expected outcome given their zero-use baseline.

Further analyses identified significant changes in the types of cannabis products favored by active users over time, with declines in the use of dried flower, concentrates, cannabis oil, tinctures, topical ointments, and hashish. In contrast, the consumption of edibles, liquids, and cannabis oil cartridges or disposable vapes increased. The shift away from combustibles is a positive development that may reduce the likelihood of developing pulmonary health issues.

These findings suggest that cannabis legalisation may not lead to the adverse health effects that critics feared. In fact, it could promote safer consumption habits and minimise overall harm.

Canada’s experience did not result in a public health crisis. Misuse declined, safer products gained acceptance, and the situation remained stable. As US states continue to consider legalisation, the takeaway is clear: the question isn’t whether to legalise—it’s how to do it smart.

* * * * 

Jeffrey A. Singer is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, working in the Department of Health Policy Studies, and has been in private practice as a general surgeon for more than 35 years.
    He is also a visiting fellow at the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix, and a member of the Board of Scientific Advisors of the American Council on Science and Health. From 1994 to 2016, he was a regular contributor to 'Arizona Medicine,' the journal of the Arizona Medical Association. He writes and speaks extensively on regional and national public policy, with a specific focus on the areas of health care policy and the harmful effects of drug prohibition.

    His post first appeared at the Cato at Liberty blog.

""This is America’s drug war and America’s war on immigrants, not Mexico’s."

"[S]upporters of Donald Trump do not like people referring to his upcoming presidency as dictatorial, notwithstanding his own promise to be a dictator on Day 1 of his administration (and possibly beyond). ...
    "[R]ecently, in the finest Godfather tradition, [he] made Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum an offer she can’t refuse. He told her that if she fails to enforce his war on drugs and his war on immigrants, he will impose a 25 percent tariff on Mexican products exported to the United States. ...
    "For decades, the U.S. government has had a drug war and a system of immigration controls, ... [that] have produced nothing but death, suffering, corruption, and the destruction of liberty and privacy. ...
    "This is America’s drug war and America’s war on immigrants, not Mexico’s. Why should Mexico be required to enforce America’s dysfunctional and unworkable systems, especially since such enforcement constitutes a destruction of the liberty and privacy of the Mexican people? ...
    "What if Scheinbaum succumbs to Trump’s threat and lines the Mexican border with Mexican troops. ... Does Trump expect the Mexican military to shoot them, just as East German troops were called on to shoot East Germans who were trying to enter West Germany? ...
    "[U]nder [the American] system of government, [a unilateral imposition of tariffs] were supposed to be made by the elected representatives of the people in Congress. But I suppose that Trump’s thinking is that in a Day 1 dictatorship, who needs a stinking Congress? It’s much easier to simply issue dictatorial decrees. ...
    "[And] guess what happens if Trump makes Mexico even more poverty-ridden with his imposition of tariffs. Yep, more immigrants fleeing Mexico to come to the United States, just as millions of Venezuelans fled that country after the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Venezuelan people. ... especially given that Mexico already has significant poverty, which is why so many Mexican citizens risk their lives and liberty to come to the United States. ...
    "I wonder if Trump has thought about that."

~ Jacob Hornberger from his post 'Don Vito Trump'

"Libertarianism differs fundamentally from both left liberal and conservative perspectives."

"Popular opinion views [left] liberalism and conservatism as radically different perspectives about the proper size and scope of government. ... Yet [left] liberal and conservative perspectives are the same in one key respect: both advocate using government to impose particular values.
    "Conservatives want to ban drugs, liberals guns. Conservatives advocate banning abortions, [left] liberals subsidising them. Conservatives support subsidies for home schooling and religious schools, [left[ liberals the same for low-income housing and 'clean' energy. ... Thus the goals of favoured policies differ, but not the belief that government should promote specific views ... —all of which involve government interference with private decisions ...
    "Libertarianism differs fundamentally from both [left] liberal and conservative perspectives. ... consistently ask[ing] whether government intervention does more harm than good. And it applies this skepticism regardless of the associated 'values.'
    "Thus libertarianism argues against both drug prohibition and gun control; against government protection of unions, but not against unions per se; against government-imposed affirmative action, but not against privately adopted affirmative action; against any government-imposed content moderation of social media, but not against private moderation policies; against all trade and immigration restrictions; against government restrictions on school choice; against government-mandated licenses; and against the government defining marriage.
    "Perhaps libertarians are wrong about the merits of some government interventions. But applying a consistent lens across policies helps understand the inconsistencies of both [left] liberal and conservative perspectives."

~ Jeffrey Miron from his post 'Libertarian Consistency'

Frank Lloyd Wright: Midway Gardens

 

Hypnolysis has animated old photographs to produce a "live" photographic walkthrough of Frank Lloyd Wright's European-inspired indoor/outdoor concert garden with space for year-round dining, drinking and performances. Built near downtown Chicago. Midway Gardens was a delight, creating a home for sophisticated pleasure-seeking and playing host to many of the early swing bands like Count Basie and Benny Goodman (who was 'discovered' while playing the Gardens in 1926). 

But the timing was rotten, the complex completed just a few years before the wowsers brought in Prohibition, closing large drinking establishments and handing booze profits to gangsters. 

Wright at least had the satisfaction of hearing that two demolition companies had gone bankrupt demolishing the beautiful structure.

Q: Why did cannabis legalisation not eliminate the underground market?

"The state of New York legalised recreational marijuana in 2021. Recent estimates, however, count 2,000 unlicensed vendors and only 100 licensed ones.
    "Why did legalisation not eliminate the underground market?
    "One problem is that New York [state]’s policy change did not eliminate the federal ban on marijuana ... A second impediment is that New York has been slow at licensing legal marijuana retailers ... The third factor is the state’s 13% tax on retail sales, which again advantages black market sales. ...
    "[P]olicy should allow the entire market to move above ground — by reducing costly and time-consuming regulation. ... while expanding licensing and lowering the tax rate, the state can move most of the market above ground. This will plausibly raise tax revenue, by applying a lower rate to a much larger base."

~ Jeffrey Miron + Lemoni Larsen Matsumoto from their post 'To Eliminate Underground Markets, Tax and Regulate Less'

More news from the War on Drugs™

"When President Nixon declared drug addiction Public Enemy Number One in 1971, it was with his 1969 declaration to Congress that the full forces of government must be marshalled “to cope with this growing menace to the general welfare of the United States.” Again, the nation was told, we would reduce crime and poverty, lower the scope and costs of incarceration, and stamp out a danger to the American family.
    "It is a vast understatement to say that these assurances were wrong ...
    "As of 2015, the rate of prisoners as a function of the population has grown from 100 per 100,000 in the period before Nixonian drug policy to over 500 per 100,000. As a result, the United States has become the world’s largest jailer, both in absolute terms and in rate. ...
    "Between 1973 and 2013, over $1 trillion was spent on drug enforcement in the U.S. alone. Yet, in 2016, Americans spent $150 billion on heroin, methamphetamines, cocaine, and marijuana, which doesn’t even factor in other classes of illicit drugs. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of these sunk opportunity costs is that despite a regime of increasing funding for supply-side enforcement, drug prices have continued to decline over the last four decades. This isn’t to say that they exist in cost parity with legal substances; their prices are still higher. What it does say is that current policy does little to abate demand.
    "Moreover, instead of reducing crime, prohibition simply creates more criminals. Everyone involved in the drug market, from supplier to distributor to consumer, is automatically a criminal. Absent the property rights protections and dispute resolution apparatus available via normal legal channels, interested parties must resolve their own conflicts, often leading to violent means. ...
    "Just as it was with alcohol during Prohibition, quality control is an issue with illegal drugs. As we discussed earlier, prohibitory laws create incentives to minimise the costs of production and transport while maximising profit, which in turn trends towards potency as the major concern. Because the product is manufactured by local entrepreneurs, however organised, there are no industry-wide safety standards. Hence, the current issue of heroin laced with fentanyl, for example. This leads to an increase in drug-related overdoses, and other related problems.
    "These are just a few of the more obvious social costs related to the War on Drugs™."

~ Tarnell Brown from his post 'Nothing New Thing Under the Sun: Prohibition, Drugs and the Iron Law'

"If a group is intimidating the public, they can and should be arrested; no matter what they are wearing. If they are wearing patches and not threatening the public they should remain outside the reach of the law."

"At issue is a plan to ban gang insignia being worn in public ... A common complaint against similar laws is to ask the question; if the state is permitted to force known undesirables to change their clothes, what will stop them from forcing restrictions on the more respectable?
    "My position is more fundamental; the state should not be telling some of the worst members of our society what to wear because the state should not tell anyone what to wear. ...
    "Gangs are a form of power that operates outside the limitations we have attempted to impose on governments. ... I support most of the actions being taken to reduce their power, including membership being an aggravating feature at sentencing and non-association orders where there is some judicial oversight. Of course, being a libertarian columnist, I’d be delighted to see the end of drug prohibition, which is what gives these groups their economic power. ...
    "But I cannot bring myself to accept a ban on gang livery.
    "If a group is intimidating the public, they can and should be arrested; no matter what they are wearing. If they are wearing patches and not threatening the public they should remain outside the reach of the law.
    "It is intolerable to uphold the liberties that we expect for ourselves to those who would delight in our destruction. I do not deny this; nor the human desire bring these people to heel.
    "But because we can, does not mean we should ..."

~ Damien Grant, from his column ''The state should not tell anyone what to wear'

The US southern border is a mess. But it's not a warzone. There is no "invasion." But it is a problem. How to improve safety at the border and reduce illegal immigration? In this short guest post, Jeffrey Miron offers three strong libertarian solutions ....

Reducing Illegal Immigration

by Jeffrey Miron

What policies, if any, can reduce the flow of illegal immigration?

The libertarian answer is expanded legal immigration. Libertarians believe this would benefit the United States, the sending countries, and the immigrants.

The more popular answer is roughly the opposite: stricter bans on immigration via guards or border walls.

Numerous examples, however, suggest that banning something (drugs, guns, prostitution, abortion) has only a modest impact on its prevalence.

Thus, without expanding legal immigration, the US can only curtail illegal immigration by reducing the demand to migrate here.

Fortunately, the US has two options that fit the bill. The first is repealing the War on Drugs, which is responsible for much of the violence in Latin America. Absent this chaos, fewer people would attempt to migrate.

The second is the elimination of trade restrictions against Latin America (and other countries). This would raise wages and improve economic conditions south of the border, again reducing the flow of migrants.

Happily, both policies make sense independent of immigration policy. Two “win‐​win” options, if the US only has the sense to adopt them.

* * * * 

Jeffrey Miron is an American economist. He served as the chairman of the department of economics at Boston University from 1992 to 1998, and currently teaches at Harvard University, serving as a senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies in Harvard's economics department. 

His post previously appeared at the Cato at Liberty blog.

New Zealand's About‐​Face on Tobacco Prohibition - The View from Washington

 

Jeffrey Singer reports from Washington DC, in this guest post, that the Luxon Government's reversal of the forthcoming tobacco prohibition may have international repercussions. Positive ones ...

New Zealand's About‐​Face on Tobacco Prohibition

by Jeffrey A. Singer

New Zealand’s newly‐​elected centre‐​right government announced yesterday that it intends to scrap a planned phase‐​in of tobacco prohibition that would have banned sales of tobacco products to people born after 2009. The plan would have also cut the number of retailers permitted to legally sell tobacco by 90 percent, and ordered tobacco makers to reduce the nicotine content of cigarettes they may sell. Anyone versed in the economics of prohibition would have predicted that each of those three measures would help fuel a vibrant black market with its corresponding violent crime and corruption.

This is good news for New Zealanders, where fewer than 14 percent of persons over age 15 smoked tobacco in 2020. They will avoid yet another state encroachment on their personal liberty along with tax increases to fund government spending on enforcing tobacco prohibition and fighting tobacco smugglers.

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak should take notice. Last month, his government announced plans to clone New Zealand’s tobacco prohibition plan. Announcing his plan at Britain’s Conservative Party Conference, Sunak said, “A 14‐​year‐​old today will never legally be sold a cigarette.”

Sunak’s announcement came as both a surprise and a disappointment to tobacco harm reduction advocates, given the UK’s heretofore reasonable approach to reducing tobacco smoking. While nicotine is the addictive component of tobacco smoke, it is a relatively harmless stimulant, not very different from caffeine, as Scotland’s NHS Informs has stated. It is the other components of tobacco smoke that produce harm to health.

The UK’s Royal Society of Public Health says nicotine is “no more harmful to health than caffeine.” Public Health England has said that “vaping” with nicotine e‑cigarettes is “95 percent less harmful than tobacco smoking.” The Royal College of Physicians has issued the following statement:

• [T]he available evidence to date indicates that e‑cigarettes are being used almost exclusively as safer alternatives to smoked tobacco, by confirmed smokers who are trying to reduce harm to themselves or others from smoking, or to quit smoking completely.
• There is a need for regulation to reduce direct and indirect adverse effects of e‑cigarette use, but this regulation should not be allowed significantly to inhibit the development and use of harm‐​reduction products by smokers.
• However, in the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e‑cigarettes, NRT [nicotine replacement therapy] and other non‐​tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK.

So far, Brookline, Massachusetts is the only jurisdiction in the United States to have enacted a tobacco ban. Brookline bans the sale of tobacco to anyone born after the year 2000. It doesn’t take an entrepreneurial genius to figure out ways to make money legally selling cigarettes to adults from the other side of the Brookline town line.

Earlier this year, California lawmakers considered making the Golden State the first in the nation to enact New Zealand’s tobacco prohibition model into law. A bill to that effect failed to advance during this year’s legislative session. Interestingly, California’s major anti‐​smoking and anti‐​vaping groups chose not to lobby for the bill. A Cal Matters report quoted Autumn Ogden‐​Smith, director of California state legislation for the American Cancer Society Action Network, saying, “This is not the time to tackle this. We’re trying to do the clean‐​up on the flavored tobacco ban. We’re having enforcement issues.”

As I wrote here, banning menthol tobacco creates its own set of harmful unintended consequences.

New Zealand’s recent about‐​face on tobacco prohibition will hopefully put to rest similar efforts in California and other states. Let’s hope it will also cause Sunak and his Conservative Party to reconsider their plans. The UK had the right approach to reducing tobacco smoking until now: opting for evidence‐​based tobacco harm reduction instead of prohibition.

* * * * 

Jeffrey A. Singer is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and works in the Department of Health Policy Studies. He is President Emeritus and founder of Valley Surgical Clinics Ltd., the largest and oldest group private surgical practice in Arizona, and has been in private practice as a general surgeon for more than 35 years.

His post first appeared at the Cato at Liberty blog.

Lawmakers everywhere have failed to learn the Iron Law of Prohibition, that is, that prohibition encourages purveyors of prohibited substances to find more potent forms of the banned substance. As Jeffrey Singer explains in this Guest Post, policymakers are now discovering that tobacco and e‑cigarette bans are not exempt from the iron law. Whether these prohibitionists reverse course before causing more harm remains to be seen.

E‑Cigarettes Are Not Exempt from the Iron Law of Prohibition

by Jeffrey A. Singer

The New York Times reports today about a flood of illicit e‑cigarettes arriving from China “in Barbiecore colors and fruit, ice cream and slushy flavors,” accounting for a “major share of the estimated $5.5 billion e‑cigarette market in the United States.” This “never‐​ending influx of vapes” comes despite the Food and Drug Administration authorising only a handful of e‑cigarettes for sale to persons over age 21.

The Times reports that many of these vapes contain 5,000 or more puffs per device and have nicotine levels that sometimes exceed those in tobacco cigarettes. Many are being sold in convenience stores even though the FDA has sent them warning letters threatening store owners with fines as high as $19,000 per violation.

The goal of policymakers and the FDA was to curtail the use of flavored vapes. Many states and some cities have enacted bans on in‐​store and/​or online sales of flavored vapes.

According to the CDC, these prohibitionist efforts have backfired, resulting in a surge in flavored vape sales, from 11 million per month in early 2020 to 18 million per month in June 2023.

The Times reports that seven years since Congress granted the FDA regulatory authority over e‑cigarettes in 2016, 40 percent of e‑cigarette users are 25 or younger. And while the FDA has authorized only a couple of dozen e‑cigarette products, vapers find access to more than 2,000 of them. The Times article states:

There are few places where the problem feels more pressing than in high school bathrooms, where students crowd the stalls between classes to get a nicotine fix.

Nevertheless, teen vaping rates have fallen from their peak of 28 percent in 2019 to roughly 14 percent in 2022.

The failure of e‑cigarette prohibition was predictable—as is the advent of more potent and puff‐​packed forms of nicotine vapes now sold on the black market. Though prohibitionists never seem to learn, the “Iron Law of Prohibition” is inescapable. A variant of what economists call the “Alchian‐​Allen Effect,” put simply, the iron law states, “the harder the law enforcement, the harder the drug.”

Prohibition encourages purveyors of prohibited substances to find more potent forms of the banned substance so it can be smuggled in smaller sizes and subdivided into more units to sell. During alcohol prohibition, for instance, bootleggers smuggled whiskey and other hard liquors, not beer or wine.

The iron law of prohibition is why cannabis THC concentration has grown over the years. It is what brought crack cocaine into the cocaine market. And it made fentanyl replace heroin as the primary cause of overdose deaths in the United States.

In the 21st century, law enforcement’s crackdown on diverted prescription opioids (the drug of choice for nonmedical users at the time) led to their replacement with heroin. By 2012, heroin dealers began adding the synthetic opioid fentanyl to heroin so they could smuggle it in smaller sizes and subdivide it into more units to sell. By 2016, fentanyl‐​related deaths eclipsed deaths from heroin and diverted prescription pain pills. By 2017, fentanyl was found in more than 50 percent of opioid‐​related overdose deaths. By 2022, it was involved in roughly 90 percent of deaths.

Policymakers are now discovering that tobacco and e‑cigarette bans are not exempt from the iron law. Whether these prohibitionists reverse course before causing more harm remains to be seen.

* * * * 

Jeffrey A. Singer is is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and works in the Department of Health Policy Studies. He is President Emeritus and founder of Valley Surgical Clinics Ltd., the largest and oldest group private surgical practice in Arizona, and has been in private practice as a general surgeon for more than 35 years.
    He is also a visiting fellow at the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix. Singer is a member of the Board of Scientific Advisors of the American Council on Science and Health. From 1994 to 2016, he was a regular contributor to 'Arizona Medicine,' the journal of the Arizona Medical Association. He served on the Advisory Board Council of the Center for Political Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University from 2014 to 2018. He writes and speaks extensively on regional and national public policy, with a specific focus on the areas of health care policy and the harmful effects of drug prohibition.
    He received his BA from Brooklyn College (City University of New York) and his MD from New York Medical College. He is a fellow of the American College of Surgeons.

    His post first appeared at the Cato On Liberty blog.

"A free man must be able to endure it..."

“The propensity of our contemporaries to demand authoritarian prohibition as soon as something does not please them, and their readiness to submit to such prohibitions even when what is prohibited is quite agreeable to them shows how deeply ingrained the spirit of servility still remains within them. It will require many long years of self-education until the subject can turn himself into the citizen. A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police.”

~ Ludwig Von Mises, from his 1927 book Liberalism: The Classical Tradition

"We'd wind up with a giant black market in vapes, and more harms because of it...."

"If youths are vaping, it's not for want of rules prohibiting supplying youths with vape.
    "The rules are broadly modelled on the rules around supplying minors with alcohol....
    "I don't know that there's a good case for tightened restrictions on access by minors. I also wouldn't support restrictions on kids getting a frappucino. Nicotine without combustion isn't that different from caffeine....
     "[W]orst of all would be if National, spurred on by Mike Hosking's crusade against vaping on Newstalk ZB, put in Australian-style restrictions. We'd wind up with a giant black market in vapes, and more harms because of it...."

~ Eric Crampton from his post 'Youth Vaping Rules'

"New Zealand does very well in amplifying its homegrown gang problem"

"Lately there’s a lot of noise over the deported 501s and their contribution to escalating gang and gun violence.
    "But New Zealand does very well in amplifying its homegrown [gang] problem through strong welfare incentives and weak child protection services....
    "Over an examined twenty-one year period 92 percent of gang members received a benefit at some point with the average duration of receipt at 8.9 years.
    "Their rents are often paid through the accommodation supplement if not through income-related rents and emergency housing in motels etc. And their food is often paid for through hardship grants.
    "Gang partners are also paid single parent benefits and child tax credits. Their weekly ‘package’ can amass more than $1,000.... it is important to gang members to father children, and they do it more frequently than non-gang members - 2,337 gang members had benefit spells that included 7,075 dependent children."

~ Lindsay Mitchell, from her post 'Why Luxon Can't Win the War on Gangs.' She notes that in 2014 there were 3,960 adult gang members known to police; 5,343 at the end of 2017; and as of June 30 last year there were 8,061! As I said back in 2016, 'Don’t like gangs? Then legalise cannabis.'

Supply Chains

"The strongest supply chains in the world are illicit."

          ~ tweeted by @antiboomerparty 

Politicians’ Biggest Anti-Marijuana-Legalisation Talking Point Just Got Thoroughly Debunked: New Study

Image Credit: PixaBay | CC via 2.0

A new study of the results of American semi-legalisation of marijuana suggests the notion that marijuana is a 'gateway drug' is little more than political fiction. As Brad Polumbo concludes in this guest post, however, to oppose the right of adults to decide for themselves, politicians will still resort to base scare tactics no matter how many studies debunk their false doomsday narratives.

Politicians’ Biggest Anti-Marijuana-Legalisation Talking Point Just Got Thoroughly Debunked: New Study

by Brad Polumbo

Politicians who defend criminalising recreational marijuana users have long riled up voters with dire warnings that the substance acts as a “gateway drug.” They insist that even if deaths directly caused by marijuana usage are virtually nonexistent, pot will nonetheless 'eventually' lead many users  to more dangerous drugs.

President Biden himself has long made this claim, stating in 2010 that “I still believe [marijuana] is a gateway drug.” Only in 2019, while campaigning for president, did Biden begin to walk back this position. Yet he still does not fully support federal marijuana legalisation. And the “gateway” position is still held by many other politicians clinging to their opposition to a widely popular legalisation movement. For example, Republican Congressman Andy Harris recently referred to marijuana as “a known gateway drug to opioid addiction” while arguing against legalisation. 

[And here in New Zealand, the recent referendum was confounded with the same fact-free assertion from politicians and their assorted supporters. - Ed.]

However, a new study suggests once again that the notion that marijuana is a “gateway drug” is little more than political fiction.

Economists examined the impact that recreational marijuana laws passed in 18 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have had on metrics key to the “gateway” narrative. The analysis is the first to “comprehensively examine the broader impacts of state recreational marijuana laws (RMLs) on a wide set of outcomes related to hard drug use, including illicit non-marijuana related consumption, drug-related arrests, arrests for property and violent offences, mortality due to drug-related overdoses, suicides, and admissions for drug addiction-related treatment.” 

And what did they find? Across four different nationwide databases, the researchers “find little consistent evidence” that recreational marijuana laws have gateway effects to hard drugs. Further, the study finds “little compelling evidence to suggest” that marijuana legalisation leads to more increases in drug use, more arrests for hard drug offences, drug overdoses, or admissions for drug addiction treatment.

They say there is even “suggestive evidence that legalising recreational marijuana reduces heroin- and other opioid-related mortality.” [Emphasis mine.] Ultimately, the authors conclude that critics' fear of marijuana’s supposed “gateway” effect appears “unfounded.”

Unfounded, indeed. But don’t expect critics to change their tune.

The argument for marijuana legalisation is, fundamentally, just an argument for personal choice and individual liberty. To oppose the right of people to decide for themselves, politicians must resort to scare tactics, no matter how many studies debunk their false doomsday narratives.

[Which means that here in New Zealand, as comedienne Michelle A'Court observed, even though the hypothesis that cannabis is a "gateway" to harder drugs has been debunked, it sure as heck remains a gateway to prison. - Ed.]

* * * * 

 

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), where his post first appeared.