Yesterday’s brief discussion of the drug war is still eliciting lots and lots of email, as it always does. It’s funny, I’d say the biggest source of my own self-censorship isn’t political correctness, fear of controversy, or even aversion to copious hate mail (I get that any way). It’s fear of a couple hundred emails from thoughtful folks repeating arguments I’ve heard before but that I feel obliged to respond to since they’re offered in good faith. Anyway, that’s a topic for another time.
One point I would like to make in response to a great many folks is the idea that simply because I’m in favor of keeping addictive narcotics illegal, I must think the current drug war is going well. I don’t. I think it’s a disaster. And while I’m very dubious of a lot of anti-drug war charges about our prisons being filled to the rafters with non-violent criminals, I think the overall indictment of the ongoing catastrophe is more accurate than not. But simply because I agree with a diagnosis doesn’t mean I have to agree with the proposed remedy.
Indeed, this is a point often lost in political debates. Both conservatives and liberals are too often afraid to concede that the other side is pointing out real problems for fear of lending legitimacy to the opposition’s proposed solutions. Take global warming. I believe the earth is in a warming period. I believe that man has played a role in that, though how much of one is open for debate. I’m unconvinced it’s the problem many say it is. But even if it is the problem they say it is, I think the proposed remedies from environmentalists are often — but certainly not always — silly (improving energy efficiency always makes sense to me, for example). Or take healthcare. I think the current system is a mess. I don’t know many free-market types who really disagree with that. But liberals see the mess and want the government to take over. I don’t. Similarly, I know many liberals who privately think conservatives have a point about the coarseness of the common culture or the downside to racial quotas but are the loathe to concede it because they think conservative solutions are worse than the problem. And so on.
Anyway, when it comes to the drug war, I’m willing to concede the point to the drug legalization crowd that the current war on drugs has all sorts of terrible consequences. I just think legalizing crack, heroin etc. will have even worse consequences, particularly in the short and mid term (i.e. the next decade or two). I believe that if you make drugs like crack cheaper, easier to get and more socially acceptable there will be more women like that cokehead mom discussed yesterday.
So what’s my solution? Well the first answer has to be, I don’t know. In fact, I’m not sure we can know. Some problems are hard and if not permanent certainly enduring. I don’t have a solution to robbery, murder, or rape. All I have is an idea of how society should respond to such things in order to minimize their occurrence and to apply justice to those who perpetrate them (these are related but not identical issues). Secondly, much as with global warming and all sorts of things, I place my hopes on technology. I think treatments will only get better as we understand the brain and neuroscience better. And, I’m pretty sure we’ll come up with much better drugs that will make smoking crack or shooting heroin seem comparatively unappealing but will also be far less destructive.
In the meantime, I’m all in favor of thinking creatively and, as a consistent federalist, I would be willing to tolerate local experimental legalizations even though I think such policies are folly.