“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')

When the “junk heap” is steadily deteriorating

Wastewater analysis suggests increasing recreational drug use among New Zealanders. (Although there are some problems with the data.) But this isn't an issue confined to our small islands.

This is of course when recreational drugs are illegal. So drug consumers are willing to pay more to gangs for a riskier product to get their chosen high.

Two questions always come up when one advocates for drug legalisation. 

The first is that legal drugs will make drug consumption more prevalent and more sordid. This goes against both evidence and theory: Milton Friedman for one arguing that the Iron Law of Prohibition actively encourages the escalation of more virulent pharmaceuticals, to make any drug problem worse.

But the other question is this: 

Why do many people want to abuse drugs and alcohol? Why is this such a persistent problem in our culture — and would it still be a problem in a more rational culture?

Good question. And Stewart Margolis takes a good stab at answering it, beginning by drawing a distinction between drug use and drug abuse. Because clearly there are many well-functioning adults happily consuming recreational drugs including opium, alcohol and caffeine -- and if we trace the history, have been doing so since the first fermented berries were found several thousand years ago.  Indeed,

Archaeologists have found evidence of opium use in Europe by 5,700 BC, and cannabis seeds have been found at archaeological digs in Asia from 8,100 BC.

So it seems at least some adults have discovered a rational way to use mind-altering substances. A decent martini before dinner for example being one of the best ways to shake off the cares of the day.

There may be some that are simply too dangerous to ever be used, but that would be a scientific question rather than a moral one. 

But some adults won't, can't or don't want to be rational about it. If we discount the obvious (that some people are prone to addiction; that there might be genetic factors increasing susceptibility to substance abuse) we're left with the nagging idea that there might be more to it than that. 

Margolis makes the case that the problem is fundamentally philosophical:

Of course, a worldwide problem like this undoubtedly has multi-factorial causes, but I think at root drug abuse is an attempt to escape reality. 

Materially, the world has never been richer, so what are so many people eager to escape from? Despite our affluence, I think we are experiencing a philosophical crisis. 

Ayn Rand pointed out that humans need a philosophy in order to live. In “Philosophy: Who Needs It,” she wrote, 

“Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation — or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalisations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt.”

 I think Rand was spot on, and the increase we are seeing in drug abuse is the result of the self-doubt brought on by people who have assembled a “junk heap” of often contradictory ideas. This has always been a huge problem, and has always resulted in a tremendous amount of suffering. So why does it seem to be worse now?

I think it’s because the quality of the ideas in the “junk heap” has been steadily deteriorating. 

When ... [common sense and] enlightenment ideas were widespread in the culture, average, unthinking people could randomly pick up a pretty workable set of ideas, which would allow them to prosper and attain a measure of happiness. They were not as happy and prosperous as they could have been, had they done the work of choosing and integrating the right ideas, but they could do all right.

But today, many of the ideas floating around in the cultural are anti-enlightenment. If you unthinkingly accept a collection of these ideas, you are unlikely to prosper or find happiness.

It's perhaps also the case that governments' increasing  economic mismanagement has been making it increasingly difficult for younger folk to get ahead economically -- they can sense that even if they can't see that explicitly -- so that there's part of of them ready to give up on the "old" idea that hard work will pay off.

You [might] notice that you’re not doing as well as your parents did, either economically, romantically, or socially. As a result, you will be filled with doubt, with dread, with a sense that something is wrong with the world — but you don’t know what or how to fix it. I believe this is the feeling that people desperately want to escape — and so they turn to drugs that numb or relieve these feelings, at least temporarily.

While I’m sure there are benefits to be found in a variety of drug and alcohol treatment programmes, I don’t think we’re likely to make much progress on substance abuse until people deal with the underlying philosophical crisis driving the abuse. 

In the meantime, though, making drugs legal would provide a huge benefit, both to those struggling with abuse issues, and more importantly, to those of us who don’t use drugs or who are able to use them responsibly.

"You can't punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty."

" 'American found guilty of murder and multiple rapes' is a headline you'll never see. But how often have you seen:

" 'Illegal immigrant found guilty of . . .'

"People reading the latter are highly unlikely to realise that they are being manipulated. But they are: the headlines about illegal immigrants are cherry-picked by the anti-immigrationists.

"The statistics are irrelevant: you can't punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty...

"There is another crucial point: crime is small potatoes---compared to the government's crime against millions of potential immigrants. ...

"Immigration controls are a rights-violating way to 'solve' a problem created by a rights-violation (drug laws). And, since the immoral is the impractical, the 'solution' solves nothing."

~ Harry Binswanger from his post 'American found guilty of murder and multiple rapes' 

                            PS: "US Citizens Were 80 Percent of All Convicted Drug Traffickers in 2024"

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'

"The U.S. should abandon its obsession with the anti-immigration policies of the recent past, and instead address the real causes of illegal immigration."

"How can the United States reduce illegal immigration? ...
    "The reality is that only four policies can significantly reduce illegal immigration.
    "The first is allowing more legal immigration. …
    "The second … is to expand free trade. …
    "A more controversial way to shrink illegal immigration is to de-escalate the war on drugs. …
    "A further policy that might reduce immigration is scaling back the U.S. welfare state ... to either reduce that generosity or condition benefits on legal residence for a significant number of years. ...

"The policies that will do little to shrink illegal immigration are increased border enforcement, stiffer punishments for employers who hire illegals, or aggressive arrest policies ... These measures are ineffective because they do not change the fact that wages in the U.S. are attractive compared to wages in poor countries. And, for centuries, immigrants have endured amazing hardships to seek higher income or a better life in America. Longer or higher fences will not change that.
    "Instead, stepped-up enforcement will drive more activity underground....

    "[T]he U.S. should abandon its obsession with the anti-immigration policies of the [recent] past and instead address the real causes of illegal immigration."

~ Jeffrey Miron from his post 'The Right Way to Reduce Illegal Immigration'

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'

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.

'Abusers Give Vice a Bad Name'

"The difference between me and normal observers: I don’t consider extreme abusers or 'addicts' to be victims. I consider them victimisers. They aren’t a symptom of a greater social problem. They are the greater social problem. Abusers have and continue to make evil choices. Granted, it logically possible to end up on Fentanyl Row through tremendously bad luck. Empirically, however, everything I’ve read on poverty convinces me that the root cause of such residence is almost invariably extraordinarily irresponsible behaviour. (Even a mild dose of the Success Sequence will keep you off the street: Read Adam Shephard’s 'Scratch Beginnings' for a blueprint.)
    "Abusers don’t just mistreat their families, friends, neighbours, and passersby. Even worse, they give vice a bad name."

~ Bryan Caplan from his post 'Abusers Give Vice a Bad Name'

Q; "What's America's longest war?"

"When you ask people, "What's America's longest war?" they usually answer "Vietnam" or amend that to "Afghanistan," but it's neither.
    "America's longest war is the war on drugs.
    "[Almost fifty] years and counting.... And drugs are more plentiful, more potent, and less expensive than ever."
          ~ Dan Winslow, from his book The Cartel

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.

On the cannabis referendum...

"'I think if you look at the evidence around use in New Zealand which can be harmful, this legislation is well written, puts in protections, and I expect will reduce harm,' [says Dr Richard Medlicott]."
    "Opponents to legalisation say some of those provisions can be put in place without legalising weed, such as better access to health services. The New Zealand Medical Association ... [for example, proposes] a form of decriminalisation, rather than legalisation. Dr Medlicott does not agree with that.
    "'It's kind of a change in the rules that doesn't really go far enough,' Dr Medlicott said.
    "'You'd still have people that want to purchase marijuana going to some pretty dodgy places and mixing with some pretty dodgy characters.'
    "'You'll still have high potency marijuana available, you'll still have it being pushed on the under 20s.'
    "'I don't think decriminalisation is the way, I think legalisation has to be the better option.'"

                ~ Dr Richard Medlicott, the Medical Director at the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, reported in the article 'Doctors speak out against Medical Association's stance on cannabis referendum'

The five most ridiculous beliefs that many people hold about economics or politics ...

 

Don Boudreaux was asked to list the "five most ridiculous beliefs that many people hold about economics or politics – beliefs that should be recognised as ridiculous by any sane adult, regardless of education or exposure to economics." And they are, in ascending order:

1. Free trade is a plot by elites to enable corporations to profit at the expense of ordinary people.

2. The war on drugs protects us and our children from violence and other crimes.

3. Those immigrants – you know, the kind who mow your lawn, work as maids in the motel you last stayed at [or at the old folks home your mum is at], deliver and install the new dishwasher you bought, and are part of the construction crew building the new road in town – are lazy welfare leeches who are stealing jobs.

4. Government officials who do not know you care about you enough for you to trust them with power over you.

5. The most precious right an individual can have is the right to vote.

. 

"Why does no one understand that the people primarily responsible for the opioid 'epidemic' are the addicts themselves? This is the real issue—some people, including youths, find their own lives unbearable. Why? What is it about our culture that leads to such desperation?" #QotD

"Why does no one understand that the people primarily responsible for the [opioid] 'epidemic' are the addicts themselves? Narcotics are not some irresistible force that takes over the human brain. Each addict made a conscious decision each and every time he or she 'tried,' 'tried again,' and “continued” rather than 'abstained.' ...
    "This then is the real issue—some people, including youths, find their own lives unbearable. Why? What is it about our culture that leads to such desperation? ...
    "The only effective long-term strategy for eliminating drug abuse from a culture—whether the drug of choice be oxycodone, heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, morphine, marijuana, or alcohol—is to create a culture that will support authentic self-esteem, not the pseudo-self-esteem created by the cult of vicious victimhood."

~ Donna Paris, from her post 'The Opioid Epidemic Becomes the New Rope Used for Big Business Lynching'
.

QotD: "...while conservatives quiver and quake over the prospect that the illegals are coming to get them, they continue to ardently support a federal program that is a root cause of the violence in Central America and Mexico that is causing people to flee those countries. That federal program, of course, is the drug war..."

"But let’s get one thing clear: Contrary to what those fear-filled conservatives are saying, the immigrant caravan is not an invasion.... 

     "Among the darkest of ironies in this nightmarish circus [however] is the fact that while conservatives quiver and quake over the prospect that the illegals are coming to get them, they continue to ardently support a federal program that is a root cause of the violence in Central America and Mexico that is causing people to flee those countries. That federal program, of course, is the drug war, a program that has long been near and dear to the hearts of both conservatives and liberals.... 

    "There are no positive arguments for continuing drug prohibition. And no one can deny that the drug war has ripped Mexico and Central America apart owing to the drug cartels and drug gangs that the drug war has brought into existence... 

    "Many of the people in the current caravan are fleeing the drug-war violence in their countries in the hope of saving their lives or the lives of their family members. So, wouldn’t you think that conservatives, who are themselves in terrible fear of losing their lives to the illegals, would say, 'Hey, it’s time to end the drug war so that all those people will have less incentive to flee and come to the United States'? 

    "Alas, no one has ever accused a conservative of being logical." 

~ Jacob Hornberger, from his post 'The Migrant Caravan & the Drug War'

Quote of the Day: ‘Addiction ... is not what you think’

“Professor Alexander argues this discovery is a profound challenge both to the right-wing view that addiction is a moral failing caused by too much hedonistic partying, and the liberal view that addiction is a disease taking place in a chemically hijacked brain. In fact, he argues, addiction is an adaptation. It’s not you. It’s your cage. …the opposite of addiction is not sobriety. It is human connection.”~ Johann Hari, from his article ‘The Likely Cause of Addiction Has Been Discovered, and It Is Not What You Think’

Quotes of the Day: Compare and contrast

“No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor … arrested or deprived of liberty by the state … without he be brought to answer by due process of law.”
~ from the statutory rendition of Magna Carta, 1354

“No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …”
    ~ from the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, 1789

“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
    ~ from the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, 1868

“National say they'll give police powers to search the homes and cars of some violent gang members at any time without a warrant or warning…”
    ~ report on press conference with PM and Deputy PM, Sunday September 3, 2107

“It was good New Zealand lacked a written constitution as it gave governments flexibility.”
    ~ Prime Minister Bill English, reported remarks from press conference with Paula Bennett, Sunday September 3, 2107

“Question to Deputy PM Paula Bennett: ‘Does an [alleged] criminal have human rights?’
Paula Bennett: ‘Some have fewer human rights than others…”
    ~ remarks from press conference, Sunday September 3, 2107

Wasted life

In the end, it seems, nothing summarises the time in Parliament of Peter Dunne quite as much as his timing in choosing to leave.

After thirty years in office, around twenty of them as a lapdog to power, he had signalled that he might, for the first time, be able to see his way clear to effecting some sort of liberalisation of the War on Drugs -- his first move of any significance in all his time as the various politicians' poodle.

So the very moment he may have proved himself to be of some use to the wider world proved instead his complete and utter impotence.

And instead of a liberalisation that has been far too long in coming, an achievement for which he would have deservedly been remembered, he leaves the Parliament instead after thirty years without a single credible achievement to his name.

He will be able to look back back, in other words -- just like many another politician -- at a wholly and completely wasted life.
.

Want tax cuts? End the War on Drugs.

 

So, strangely, just as a $1.8 billion government “surplus” is announced* a billion-dollar need for more prison beds is discovered (or will it really be a $2.5 billion bill?) to bed down 1800 more prisoners in our already swollen prison population.

With a prison population of just under ten-thousand, New Zealand’s incarceration rate is not yet among the world’s highest – America’s 693 per 100,000 makes our 202 look positively like a land of the free – but it’s still a lot more than otherwise comparable countries like the UK (143), Australia (152) and Canada (115), and fewer than two-thirds are there for sexual or violent crimes.

But here’s the thing. The War on Drugs is not just a failure, not just a formula for easy profits for gangs, not just a violent crackdown on a victimless crime, it’s also one way the prison popuation is much greater than it would be otherwise.

End Prohibition and you don’t just take away profits from gangs and reduce the violence around drugs, you also get to reduce the prison population by around fifteen percent.

Which is frighteningly close to that figure of 1800 beds the government reckons it needs to lock up the victims of victimless crimes.

So end the War on Drugs and (if the surplus is genuine*) then you have a legitimate argument for tax cuts without commensurate spending cuts. Don’t, and you won’t.

.

* Or is it really even a real surplus when net Crown debt increased by $1.3 billion? You tell me.

.