The drug legalization advocates attacked en masse regarding my post about the faulty opposition of the Right to measures prohibiting cell phone use while driving and the Left to anti-marijuana legislation. The passionate pot advocates shattered the previous Ethics Alarms record for comment volume; to read the threads, one would think I am the last remaining citizen who supports drug laws. I more than fulfilled my obligation to respond to as many of the comments as possible, and there were many articulate and well-informed advocates. I was waiting for a worthy Comment of the Day from the debate, one that didn’t rely on one of the four fallacious arguments that will drive me to drugs if I have to read them much more. Neill Franklin, a first time commenter, came through.
Here is his Comment of the Day, on Distracted Driving, Pot, and “The Great Debate”:
“Well, we can discuss all of the philosophies, intent of the law and compare oranges to apples all day and night, but here’s the bottom line from a practical, what’s happening in the streets, our neighborhoods, cities, neighboring countries and to our kids, point of view. No speculation here…all facts.
“Validation first. I have over 30 years of law enforcement experience among three different agencies (Maryland Transit Police, Maryland State Police and the Baltimore City Police Department) where I worked patrol, undercover narcotics, various levels of command (patrol, narcotics, CID, training, human resources, finance, etc.), oversight of 13 multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, commanded the drug and criminal enforcement bureau for the Maryland State Police and training bureaus for both the MSP and BPD.
“Now back to the bottom line. Through our laws of drug prohibition, we have created the most violent society this country has ever witnessed. The foundation for most violent crime in this country, Mexico and others today is by far the illicit drug trade. The illicit trade kills in many ways. We begin with those directly affected, gang bangers (criminals) and cops. I personally knew 6 cops among just two departments who were murdered because of this non-sense of prohibition and many more seriously injured. Then we move to innocent folks – the kids caught in the crossfire of drive-by shootings and running gun battles. The Dawson family of seven who had their home set a blaze in the middle of the night by the neighborhood drug dealer because the mother had enough of his drug dealing escapades in front of their home. She went to the police for assistance and he murdered them all by fire as they slept. This is happening all across this country and how you folks can be ignorant of it I have not a clue. Maybe it’s that you just don’t give a $&#@ about it because it’s not within your gated communities. I know, not all of you live in gated communities. I just couldn’t resist, but I bet some of you do.
“I’m not done with the deaths yet. Thousands of overdoses due to unregulated junk on the streets with no quality control. Users have absolutely no idea how much of the packet is the actual drug and how much is cut. Well, if it’s that dangerous, why do they use? For the very same reason people smoke cigarettes and drink booze – they like it! And cigarettes and booze kill more folks by far – it’s not even close. If it were prohibited, they would still do it and we could double, if not triple, our prison population and homicide rate. On the brighter side, we have been successful with reducing cigarette consumption almost in half over the past couple of decades – no one in prison and no one shot. EDUCATION!
“Many overdoses could be prevented if those suffering received critical care in time. Unfortunately, because cops seek to arrest those who summon help and the person suffering, people are reluctant to call for help and as precious seconds click away, so does another life.
“Over 40,000 people murdered in Mexico over the past four years since they began accepting assistance from the US in fighting the cartel. You cannot defeat the cartel or our criminal gangs here in the US as long as they can make billions from this trade. There will always be someone to take the place of those arrested or killed. You must eliminate the trade and the ONLY way is to move it into a legal, regulated and controlled market.
“I’ve fought this war for decades and it’s only become worse. During my early years of working undercover in the Washington DC suburbs, to seize an ounce of heroin would almost get me promoted. A kilo of cocaine would get me a medal. Today, we are talking container loads of both for any serious recognition. When I seized a kilo or two of coke in the early 80s the street would feel it for about one or two weeks. Today, when 2 tons are seized, not one hiccup in the streets.
“The most serious consequence of prohibition is murder, killings by the thousands. I know for certain that they would be drastically reduced the day after we end the drug war. Life and the saving of it is first and foremost – period! Then we’ll concentrate on use and abuse, just as we have with tobacco.
“As for the long laundry list of other consequences; prisons, racial disparity (caused by inappropriate and unchecked policing practices), financial cost, availability of drugs to our kids (dangerous one man drugstores on every corner), corruption at all levels of government (way too many bad cops), overt violation of fourth amendment rights, communities never to recover due to gang violence, depressed housing markets in these communities (you think your home value has decreased), illegal and unconstitutional seizing of property, SWAT team dynamic entries gone bad, billions of dollars in CASH leaving our borders every year, a dysfunctional and over burdened judicial system, financing of terrorism, etc. OK, I’m tired and going to bed. Good night and have a blessed Christmas week-end. Be safe!”
- You too, Neill.
- For the record, I couldn’t disagree with you more—not your facts, but your remedy. When we allow criminals to win by overwhelming the system, then we are giving up on civilization. Unless regulation is ended completely for all drugs, the gangs, crime and violence will continue, and we’ll have an addicted, drug abusing society that will strangle our healthcare resources and devastate productivity.
- Of course cigarettes and alcohol kill more people than banned drugs. They’re legal. Drugs will catch up fast.
- We have reduced smoking through social disapproval, and increased the drug problem because the commenters on this post have worked for 40 years to persuade new generations that drug use is harmless, exciting and cool. How do you propose turning that around?
- Tobacco has never been illegal. Alcohol was illegal for less than a decade. When something that is a crime is suddenly legalized, it has been sanctioned and will become more acceptable. Look at what legalizing gambling has done–that’s the right comparison.
- Changing laws because we’re afraid of lawbreakers. This is this is the very definition of irresponsible to me. And abdication.
- One fact that you cite that isn’t fact: “we have created the most violent society this country has ever witnessed.” That’s obviously not true. Violent crime has fallen in most major cities. The way I read the statistics, 2010, the last full year, had less violent crime than any year since 1974.
Ethics Alarms 
Reblogged this on Basil Wheel.
Jack,
Love this column, and good choice on Neil.
I have to say though, after Neil’s rousing and factual and well-credentialed argument, my first reaction to your counter-argument was that you were being ironic. It took me a bit to realize you were serious.
Your “rebuttal” to his serious argument amounts to – right off the bat – a platitude. “When we allow criminals to win by overwhelming the system, then we are giving up on civilization.”
That kind of argument is completely immune to facts. Suppose the rate of drug-related deaths grow by 10%–would that be enough to change your mind? No? How about doubling? How about tripling? Multiplying tenfold? When do you decide that the weight of facts is against you?
Some of your arguments have more merit; your point about alcohol never having been illegal before prohibition is interesting. But as long as your first instinct is purely ideological, you condemn yourself to the crowd that says things like, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” “You can’t spend your way out of debt,” and so on. As near as I can tell, purely ideological responses to serious social issues are more likely, not less likely, to get us in trouble.
Neil deserves better.
Charles: I meant no respect to Neill, but I don’t see that response as ideology. I deal in principles, which do not have to be linked together in a rigid ideology, but do have to be respected and not abandopnes for the sake of convenience. “If you can’t beat ’em, join em” is not a valid governing principle.
If one peruses Ethics Alarms, it should be clear that I oppose absolutist approaches to life’s ethical dilemmas, because no absolute works all the time (almost—that itself is an absolute statement).. But there are many vital ethical principles that must be treated as absolutes right up to the point where following them is counter-productive, futile and suicidal. Do you torture the madman who knows where the mega-bomb is that destroys humanity, when there are no options other than to wait for the BOOM? Of course you do. Is torture absolutely a violation of American principles and ideals? Of course it is. Sometimes principles have to yield. Sometimes.
But “it’s just too hard!” is itself a societally suicidal reason to say, “Well, we know this conduct is damaging, and we were right to make it illegal, but there are too many people who are intent upon violating the law and defying their duties as citizens, so we should convert these people into law abiding members of society [as if they are capable of being so] by declaring that what we know is wrong is now right, legal, and fully supported as commerce by the United States of America.”
One of the activating virtues of ethics is fortitude, and another is courage. Neill’s argument, which he has standing to make because he was on the front lines, is…the bad guys are winning, let’s give up. Let’s say they’re no longer bad, and maybe they’ll calm down. That is a lousy precedent, expanding on the lousy precedent set by Prohibition, which could have been moderated, did not have to be administered by such universally corrupt officials, and was spectacularly ill-timed to coincide with the Depression. So if we bail on recreational drugs—first pot, then coke, then heroin, then meth, then have opium dens where the sad and overwhelmed sit all day vegging out, getting government checks for their “disability” in the process—and don’t think some of the same people who have been bombarding me for the last few days won’t be out there making sure these methods of self-incapacitation are represented by the media, SNL and the next Ron Paul as badges of liberty—then what precedent is there? That the nation has no position on right and wrong that won’t yield to intransigent defiance?
It has been spectacularly expensive and difficult to eradicate discrimination and segregation…should the argument that “This is just too hard, and we don’t have the resources, and the effort is really exacerbating race hatred because the bigots blame blacks…let’s just pass a States Rights amendment that makes official apartheid a state
decision. Problem solved!’ Yes, I believe that a government that does that has no integrity, no fortitude, and is just a political straw in the wind, waiting for a poll to tell it what is right and wrong. And yes, a government like that no longer stands for the Rule of Law and against anarchy and chaos, but is a facilitator of chaos.
And thus: “When we allow criminals to win by overwhelming the system, then we are giving up on civilization.” It’s not a bumper sticker. But I think it is true., and that we ignore it at our peril. I much prefer the argument that drug use is a personal right, is wonderful for society and the kiddies, and should be embraced by the US, now enlightened, like motherhood and apple pie. That argument articulates a valid reason for changing the law—if only it weren’t utter nonsense.
Thanks, Jack, a good response to my comment. I would note, however, that it also parallels the Pope’s argument against contraception.
Facts without principles are lacking in an ethical dimension; I agree with you on that. On the other hand, principles which are immune from facts inevitably drive toward ideologies; I suspect you would agree with that as well. The question here is, which situation are we dealing with?
Not an easy question to answer, you deserve credit for raising it well. Thank you
I see one large argument for backing principle over practicality. It doesn’t matter what the utilitarian tradeoffs are. You’re claiming that, if we do X, we lose, even if X actually causes us to win.
If you are so blinded by your principles that you are unwilling to realize that the enforcing them has the opposite effect of why you hold them, they’ve become idealogy.
You can argue that the negative consequences of violating principle X outweigh the benefits of violating principle X, but you can’t say that violating principle X is itself the problem.
But “it’s just too hard!” is itself a societally suicidal reason to say, “Well, we know this conduct is damaging, and we were right to make it illegal, but there are too many people who are intent upon violating the law and defying their duties as citizens, so we should convert these people into law abiding members of society [as if they are capable of being so] by declaring that what we know is wrong is now right, legal, and fully supported as commerce by the United States of America.”
There are multiple strawmen arguments here along with some faulty assumptions. The argument actually goes that “in this reality, with our limited time and money, and our constitutional principles, it is impossible to eradicate the negative consequences of drugs through prohibition. While we want to limit the dangers of drugs, that can be done more efficiently, in our reality, by decriminalizing them. It’s not that we’re giving up and saying drugs are good, it’s that we are simply taking a different position that we believe will be more effective towards our end goal: improving society. “
I was just a little horrified by Mr. Franklin’s comment, especially considering the source. I live in a neighborhood rife with drugs and the effects to me are evident. The effects that I see are different from those Mr. Franklin seems to care about, however. I see the wasted lives and wasted generations. If you look at the children around here, you see a generation that grew up without parents, without guidance, and without hope. They have never known adults who worked or who cared about their kids. They only know adults who are on drugs. These adults don’t play with their kids, don’t teach them. They don’t provide food, clothing, or reliable shelter and they subject their children to every form of abuse. These kids have no hope because they haven’t seen anyone like them live any other way. To escape this nightmare existence, they too turn to drugs and the cycle continues. I can’t understand how someone can advocate validating this behavior by legalizing drugs. I understand the self-serving legalization argument of the idle college student drug user and the people who somehow have lucked into good paying jobs that are easy enough to do while high, but I don’t respect them.
I really don’t understand Mr. Franklin’s arguments. I don’t understand what he wants to do with drug legalization. Unlike alcohol, people don’t do drugs for the taste, or to go with their food, or to be social. They do drugs to get high. If every time someone touched alcohol they got completely drunk, alcohol would be illegal too. The ills of drugs aren’t mainly because of the illegal nature of it, it is because of the nature of the drugs. I assume Mr. Franklin is expecting the state to give everyone unlimited amounts of free drugs (so he won’t have to deal with them burglarizing houses and robbing people for drugs). This will keep him and his colleagues from having to deal with drugs because they will now be ‘legal’. He will then blissfully ignore the spousal and child abuse that will inevitably result. How caring.
I have proposed a drug legalization scheme that lays bare all of the hype and obfuscation. In this scheme, people can apply for ‘drug licenses’. These licenses will allow them to possess and purchase user-level amounts of any drugs anywhere any time. In addition, excess drugs from drug seizures will be provided to holders of valid drug licenses at no charge. To apply, the following conditions must be met and adhered to:
(1) The applicant must have put up all existing children up for permanent adoption. (I think we can all agree that children shouldn’t’t be around this)
(2) The applicant will be permanently sterilized (the state will provide free sterilization upon request)
(3) The applicant will surrender their driver’s license. Any holder of a drug license found driving a car will forfeit their drug license and face a prison sentence (these people are going to be high a lot and should not be driving).
(4) The applicant will surrender all state and federal welfare and social services benefits (free healthcare, welfare, food stamps, social security, etc). Society should not have to subsidize this behavior.
(5) Any holder of a drug license caught trying to steal property may be killed by the property owner.
Most drug-legalization advocates are appalled by this (not serious) proposal because of what drug users must give up to get the license. I think many drug users would give all this up willingly for the ability to get free drugs legally. If people could see what drug-users are really like, and if they were no longer allowed to abuse their children, it would go a long way to turning drug-users into the societal pariahs they need to be.
Go ahead and flame me. I have no respect for the drug legalization crowd. Drugs are illegal because of what they can do to people. Look at Timothy Leary. Look at episodes of “The Surreal Life”. After you look at that, watch “Idiocracy”. Is that what you really want?
I already know the argument “but drug users aren’t like that”. The argument is bull. The argument is based on people that have someone else taking care of their needs (college students), celebrities with enough money and freedom to do what they want seemingly without serious consequences, the dabblers, and a handful of high-functioning addicts who somehow can keep their jobs (I do know some of these and I am always shocked that they keep their jobs). Most drug users aren’t like that. You know it, I know it, stop playing make believe.
How funny, the software accepted my pseudo-html “begin rant” tag and “end rant” tag .
Thanks, Michael. And not a rant at all. AND you have saved me a lot of time on a horrible day that I had committed to spend crafting a careful response to the drug legalization mob’s assorted arguments, which I find both alarming and unpersuasive. You did it for me. A down-side of responding to most posts is that I often have less time to craft the best reply than I need, and then get bogged down in off-topic bickering about turns of phrase. This accomplishes some clean-up, and best of all, maybe they’ll flame YOU for a while, so I can get my Christmas shopping done.
And a Merry Christmas to you!
30 years of law enforcement experience made me stop reading. If there is one thing I know for sure, it is to never trust law enforcement. They are not trustworthy. Now if only we could figure out how to get rid of their guns.