Prohibition Continues -- But Not Everywhere
Simon Jenkins writes for The Guardian that Argentina has come to its senses on drugs:
Last week the Argentine supreme court declared in a landmark ruling that it was "unconstitutional" to prosecute citizens for having drugs for their personal use. It asserted in ringing terms that "adults should be free to make lifestyle decisions without the intervention of the state". This classic statement of civil liberty comes not from some liberal British home secretary or Tory ideologue. They would not dare. The doctrine is adumbrated by a regime only 25 years from dictatorship.Nor is that all. The Mexican government has been brought to its knees by a drug-trafficking industry employing some 500,000 workers and policed by 5,600 killings a year, all to supply America's gargantuan appetite and Mexico's lesser one. Three years ago, Mexico concluded that prison for drug possession merely criminalised a large slice of its population. Drug users should be regarded as "patients, not criminals".
Next to the plate step Brazil and Ecuador. Both are quietly proposing to follow suit, fearful only of offending America's drug enforcement bureaucracy, now a dominant presence in every South American capital. Ecuador has pardoned 1,500 "mules" - women used by the gangs to transport cocaine over international borders. Britain, still in the dark ages, locks these pathetic women up in Holloway for years on end.
...America spends a reported $70bn a year on suppressing drug imports, and untold billions on prosecuting its own citizens for drugs offences.
...The underlying concept of the war on drugs, initiated by Richard Nixon in the 1970s, is that demand can be curbed by eliminating supply. It has been enunciated by every US president and every British prime minister.
...This concept marries intellectual idiocy - that supply leads demand - with practical impossibility. But it is golden politics. For 30 years it has allowed western politicians to shift blame for not regulating drug abuse at home on to the shoulders of poor countries abroad. It is gloriously, crashingly immoral.
Decriminalize possession and legalize pot, and tax it as cigarettes and alcohol are taxed, and let those taxes go for rehab and other associated costs that would be (and are) borne by the rest of us.
Enough is enough. Alcohol prohibition didn't work, and drug prohibition isn't working just the same.







I read an article in a Miami newspaper about how some terrorist organizations were smuggling cigarettes and selling them on the black market in countries where the taxes on tobacco were prohibitive. Hezbollah and the Real IRA were mentioned in the article.
Cody at September 6, 2009 8:59 AM
Here is the article I was referring to.
Cody at September 6, 2009 9:01 AM
"adults should be free to make lifestyle decisions without the intervention of the state".
Hear, hear. But, what would all the do-gooders who know better have to do then, oh yeah, almost forgot, healthcare reform, environmental marxism, fairness doctrine, social engineering, etc.
jksisco at September 6, 2009 11:08 AM
Rule-of-law wise, is Argentina worth living in anyway? Let's say I own a business on the edge of town somewhere and get into a dispute with a guy who sits on the town council. What happens?
I'm especially suspicious about people who describe wonderful law in other lands. This is not to imply that we're the center of the Universe, but it often seems that whatever comity such nations enjoy comes from orienting their due process toward the example of the United States anyway. Important details are often lost.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 6, 2009 11:46 AM
Evidently, Afghanistan is drug-lord heaven--Hamid Karzi's vice president is a drug lord, says George Will, and we are sending in troops to bolster this "state." Where opium is the national GDP.
Mercy.
Yes, legalize all drugs, even prescription medicines.
As for "environmental marxism," that is a dimwit sentiment. The price mechanism utterly fails when it comes to the environment. There is no cost to polluting--indeed, lowest-cost producers win, and inflict their injuries on others.
Remember Amy Alkon's SBUX expedition to wipe out cellphone abuse--the abuser was inflicting costs on others, but paid no tax and was not regulated (until the brave Alkon sallied forth, and smote the offender).
Prostitution should be legal and commercialized also. I can imagine a national chain of brothels, importing gorgeous Third World girls, reasonably priced and well-run. $50 for an hour. "SEXY," and traded on the NYSE. Great drinks, some gambling action, pretty girls. Like a great party where you are guaranteed to get laid. Paradise for men.
Men might not get married anymore, or stay married anyway, but men would be happier to make the choice themselves about their sex lives, rather than having it mandated by the state.
And imagine the materials for howlers on Sunday morning!
i-holier-than-thou at September 6, 2009 12:05 PM
this previous post is from a complete epsilon moron .... my argument for why stupid people should be terminated when they speak out
ron at September 6, 2009 1:04 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/06/prohibition_con.html#comment-1666582">comment from i-holier-than-thouProstitution should be legalized. It's your body, sell it if you want to.
P.S. I don't go to Starbucks to wipe out cell phone abuse. Actually, I was looking to read, but found it impossible with the pharmacy business being jackhammered into my ear.
Amy Alkon
at September 6, 2009 1:17 PM
As an adult, fully functioning member of society in a "free" country, I would appreciate if my government came to the same conclusions that Argentina did; I should be free to live my life in accordance with my own value system, marry who I want to marry, make my own decisions about what products I use, what medical procedures I chose to undergo (or deny), and what substances I choose to ingest for recreational use.
So long as I do not harm others with my actions, and I understand the personal consequences of my actions, my government should stay the hell out of my life!
Ari Rodriguez at September 6, 2009 2:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/06/prohibition_con.html#comment-1666585">comment from Ari RodriguezGreat round-up, Ari. I'm with you.
Amy Alkon
at September 6, 2009 2:13 PM
I have relatives in Argentina.
Latest updates. Unemployment is through the roof along with poverty, car jackings, home invasions, kidnapping for ransom and robberies. Buenos Aires is a beautiful city, but there is a dark side.
The Government closed down all the banks in Argentina a few years back and confiscated everyone’s money. The only people allowed to withdraw funds are the seniors, and only a small amount every month. So basically, everyone is stuck there unless they want to leave all their money behind. Forget about selling your properties. The government will take most of that money as well.
Inflation - more like HYPER-inflation is a joke.
Also, anyone who wants to see what happens to dissenters of this government Google: The Dirty War + Argentina. We lost five family members – including one child, and one infant during this horrible time.
My relatives who are still there wished they had moved here when they had the chance, along with my Mother's family. According to my grandmother, it was one of the best decisions they ever made.
Their economy is in the crapper, and they have elected a Peronista as their Dear Leader. Who is as close to communist as they get - and good friends with Parrot-Pants over in Venezuela.
Is this really about being free? Or is it about somatizing the citizenry into allowing more laws to be pushed upon them. They have little control over anything there as it stands. I could think of several different priorities in terms of "freedom" they could be employing over the legal use of marijuana. My guess, there are so many of these drug abusers in jails right now, Argentina no longer wants to pay for them (the money is being used on property purchases for their President and her husband whose net worth has quadrupled since being elected).
I think you could make a very strong case between drug and alcohol abuse and a complete lack of control over your own life.
I say, if we want to legalize all the drugs in the US, well, I'd be on board. But ONLY IF we FIRST remove ALL the nanny laws here too. If we really want freedom to smoke some herb than we should be free of taxation and social programs made on the Federal level as well. THEN, you can let the drug abusers figure it out for themselves.
If you legalize drugs in places where people can no longer think for themselves, you are going to be creating a bigger mess, more laws, and more government control there, I guarantee it. You are working backwards to solve the problem.
Feebie at September 6, 2009 2:48 PM
Whether or not you agree with the decsion doesnt matter. It's not the responsibility of the U.S. to act as a moral authority twoard Latin America.
Ppen at September 6, 2009 3:10 PM
I wonder if polygamy would make a comeback in a libertarian state. If women really are choosing the "best" men for reproductive purposes, it makes sense they would aim high,,,where all the other women are aiming. Not enough quality men to go around.
Polygamy solves the problem.
It is odd that two guys can get married, but not a guy to two or more girls (the norm for eons).
In Thailand traditional literature, there are many examples of polygamy, the norm prior to Westernization. In one tale, four daughters all marry the same guy, as he proved himself the smartest in a round of intelligence tests--besting out young but dumb suitors BTW.
It would seem our current anti-polygamy sentiment is akin to the past anti-gay sentiment---socially trained into citizens, not truly a natural state. What makes polygamy wrong?
I do have to say, I think most women are not truly libertarians. I can't imagine women enjoying a country where there are excellent and inexpensive brothels, gorgeous and affordable escorts to hire for vacations, and polygamy. In such a country, 90 percent of women would be disposable, as far as men were concerned.
The whole playing field would be...equalized.
American women could not stand it.
i-holier-than-thou at September 6, 2009 3:40 PM
In 1973, the SCOTUS identified a Constitutional right of privacy when it comes to one's own body.
Oh. Wait a minute. Only for certain things. And only for certain people ...
Funny. I thought the law was supposed to be the same for everyone. Silly me.
Jay R at September 6, 2009 3:48 PM
> I'd be on board. But ONLY IF we
> FIRST remove ALL the nanny laws
Word. I'm in the cholesterol years, and can't for the life of me understand what all these prescriptions are about. You want wide open drugs markets? Fine, but it's not about being nice to teenagers who want to toast their cerebella.
> Prostitution should be legalized.
> It's your body, sell it if you
> want to.
Should people be allowed to sell their bodies on the street in front of your house? If your next-door neighbor started bringing home prostitutes every Tuesday, how would you feel about it? Would the family of kids you talk about it be bothered?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 6, 2009 7:24 PM
Read that as "you sometimes talk about", not "talk about it."
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 6, 2009 7:25 PM
The problem with our drug policy is the incredibly broad brush it applies. I get where it comes from – a legitimate desire to diminish addiction and the problems that causes. I've seen first hand the way addiction fucks people up and the misery it causes. But our drug policy does not seem to do much to prevent addiction. People get addicted to drugs and alcohol at the same or higher rates here in the U.S. as they do in places with more liberal substance laws.
At the same time, I'm pretty sure drug policy is the only part of our legal code where actions that do not, or are not intended to harm others are criminalized. It's not like theft, or assault, or conspiring; the person who takes drugs (more often than not) is not doing anything but (possibly) harming himself. This does not make sense to me.
I'm a responsible adult and a productive member of society. I take good care of my loved ones. I bust my ass at work. I pay my taxes. I show up for jury duty. I don't drive recklessly or intoxicated. And yet I am, apparently, a criminal, because I occasionally choose to get intoxicated on substances other than alcohol. This also does not make sense to me.
Whatever at September 7, 2009 6:46 AM
"legalize all drugs, even prescription medicines." Then maybe I could get my pain medicine.
muggle at September 7, 2009 6:53 AM
>>My relatives who are still there wished they had moved here when they had the chance, along with my Mother's family. According to my grandmother, it was one of the best decisions they ever made.
Cool! And, I am telling men it is time to get out of the US before it is too late. Law after law allows men innocent of any offense whatsoever except having a marginally sane woman angry at him to be tossed into jail, and lose his basic Constitutional rights, affecting his entire future. Law after law converts men who have done nothing wrong, except perhaps bore a wife, to be converted to a life similar to medieval serfs.
Just as your family in Argentina, and the German Jews in the 20's, they don't think anything will ever happen to them.
irlandes at September 8, 2009 7:35 PM
"legalize all drugs, even prescription medicines." Then maybe I could get my pain medicine.
Preach on muggle! I'm now stuck with a pain management doctor that thinks he can get me off of all pain medications and that a 600 calorie a day diet will make a severe hypoglycemic feel better, and that my pain is caused by me being 'too fat'. (I'm a size 2/4)
My meds are kinda secure for a bit, as he said that he would 'fix me' and then ween me off of the meds. The sad thing is that I asked all sorts of questions about him before I made the appointment, and now I can't go looking for another doctor in awhile or I will look like I'm 'doctor shopping'.
-Julie
Julie at September 9, 2009 11:34 AM
Leave a comment