I know how this one will break down, but it’s an interesting issue nonetheless. And it doesn’t involve Hillary, Donald Trump of Bill Cosby!
Many states have addressed drug-related deaths by allowing junkies using illegal drugs to call 911 for a fellow shooter or snorter in life-threatening distress and be immune from prosecution. New Mexico passed a “Good Samaritan law” in 2007 that granted limited immunity from prosecution on simple possession charges for people who used 911 to report a drug overdose going on in front of them. The Drug Policy Alliance reports that 28 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws differing in exact provisions but providing limited freedom from prosecution in exchange for saving lives.
There is an explosion of heroin use nationwide, and therefore heroin deaths, right now. (The government abandoning its vital statements via law that drug use is wrong has a lot to do with causing this, but that is for another day.) As always, the first proposals to address a drug crisis involve loosening enforcement. Slate writes,
“In the end, of course, it doesn’t much matter how or why states pass these laws, as long as they pass them. A University of Washington study evaluating the initial results of Washington state’s Good Samaritan policy found in a survey that drug users who were aware of the law were 88 percent more likely to call 911 in the event of an overdose than before. “Despite lingering concerns about possible negative consequences of the new law, such as prosecutions being impeded, no evidence of negative consequences has been found to date,” the study concluded. Good Samaritan laws are humane and sensible. There are no compelling reasons to oppose them.”
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:
Are there really “no compelling” ethical reasons to oppose such laws?
My view: maintaining the integrity of the laws and government’s support for them is a very compelling reason.
I regard this matter as a classic example of those who don’t like a law being especially inclined not to enforce it, and to assess almost any arguably beneficial result as serving as a utilitarian justification to waive enforcement. Giving syringes to drug addicts so they can break the law without getting AIDS, for example, is ethically corrosive. The law enforcement authorities should not aid and abet law-breaking. Shooting up with illegal drugs makes you sick? Well, that’s why it’s illegal.
Shooting up also invites death by overdose, which is why the law seeks to prohibit shooting up and distributing the drugs so shot. So let me get this straight: two lawbreakers conspire together to break a law that is in place to make it clear to citizens that breaking this law is harmful to society, them, and others. They don’t care: they break it anyway. In the course of breaking the law that the government has made crystal clear is in place so they will not indulge in life-threatening and society-rotting conduct, one of the individuals actually suffers the consequence the law warns him about and is in place to prevent. The other individual, rather than be expected to act like an ethical human being and a responsible member of society by reporting the peril of his “friend,” will only do so if he receives the not inconsequential reward of being allowed to escape accountability for 1) breaking the law and 2) assisting in getting his “friend” killed, and is allowed to continue breaking the same law and endangering more “friends”! As a result, the government signals that it really isn’t that committed to law enforcement where illegal drugs are involved.
Good plan!
Why should all of us be rewarded for doing the right thing? Wait: only the unethical;, selfish people get the rewards? Oh, I see: doing good is its own reward, unless you are scum. Then we should let you break laws with impunity as a prize.
Got it.
If a junkie won’t make a 911 call to save a life unless he is rewarded, to hell with him, to be blunt. How is this different, in essence, from extortion one step removed? If he called 911 and said, “I’ll only give you the address of where my friend is dying if you promise me that I won’t be prosecuted,” would that be a deal law enforcement should make? How about, “I’ve just shot my wife, and if you promise I won’t be arrested, I’ll tell you the address?” Why shouldn’t an armed robber be allowed to make the same deal? “I just robbed this 7-11, and the owner shot my friend, and I shot him. If you promise I can go and not be arrested—and I want to keep the money too—I’ll tell you which 7-11. Deal?”
No deal.
These laws aren’t “Good Samaritan laws” at all. A Good Samaritan doesn’t need the law. A Good Samaritan is also a good citizen and an ethical human being who is willing to be prosecuted for a law he broke to save a life. This law protects scofflaws, cowards and unethical people from just accountability, all while undermining the law and creating a terrible, illogical precedent.
Slate’s writer, Justin Peters, can’t conceive of why this a bad law and bad policy, because he doesn’t think anti-drug laws should be enforced against anybody. That’s called bias.
_______________________
Pointer: Fred
Source: Slate
Ethics Alarms 
I currently have nothing to add. When I read the first opening paragraphs I knew what I would add and noticed it all in the conclusion.
Good Samaritan laws are on the books to protect people who do good things from being prosecuted for doing such things. There is a big difference between a Good Samaritan law and a law that protects criminals from prosecution because they called 911 instead of just letting one of their friends die.
Good Samaritan (actual example): A man driving on an interstate-like highway at night narrowly avoids hitting a car. The car has no lights, is on its roof, and is still spinning. The man realizes that pretty soon, a vehicle is not going to see the car and the people inside will be killed. He stops his car, runs into the road, and pulls both occupants to safety just before the car is demolished by a 72 ton truck doing 60+ mph. The man was sued by the occupants he saved because one of them was paralyzed by their injuries and they blamed him for not properly transporting them to safety. A law is needed to keep this man from losing a multimillion dollar judgement against him (the actual outcome) for the crime of risking his life to safe the lives of strangers.
Slate’s idea of a Good Samaritan (hypothetical): Two criminals break into a pharmacy to steal narcotics. One of them cuts an artery breaking the window into the pharmacy. The other one calls 911 and is later charged for breaking into the pharmacy and stealing thousands of dollars worth of narcotics. A law is needed to keep this man from going to jail for stealing large amounts of narcotics.
It is amazing how people can’t seem to see the difference between such things. It is the same as people who can’t tell the difference between an American flag burned in hatred and one being disposed of after years of use. I certainly hope these people aren’t my only recourse if I am ever being burned at the stake. They will probably buy the argument that this is just a cremation and it is perfectly acceptable.
I do not believe even Slate would advocate immunity for breaking and entering… the law so advocated only waives criminal charges for possession of relatively small doses of illegal drugs. Using such an extreme hypothetical to discredit Slate borders on forming a straw man argument.
So where do you draw the line? The principle is the same. You give people immunity for not ignoring their friend’s serious injury and possible death if they were committing a crime together.
So, where is your line on this?
Oh, and also explain how your position justifies calling the person a “Good Samaritan? That just irks me to no end.
Why do you assume this is my position? I am merely expressing Slate’s position in an accurate manner…
I don’t think so. In law, there have to be consistent principles. As I pointed out to Tim, this principle only works if you really don’t want the law to work anyway.
Saving lives is a principle. It’s really what drug laws are for (at least what they *ought* to be for). So when an anti-drug law contributes to drug-related deaths, it needs to be revised — thus the Good Samaritan exception. Even if “Samaritan” is a misnomer.
It isn’t contributing to anything. Human beings call for help when others are in peril, and if they don’t and someone dies, they are the cause. If there was a law against calling 911, then your description would be apt. If a motorist runs from police because he’s driving drunk, and kills someone fleeing, is it that drunk driving law that “contributed to the death”?
Come on.
It’s not quite the same because the “good Samaritan” exception doesn’t involve someone recklessly killing an innocent bystander.
But yes, you could say the law contributed to the death in that case. The motorist wouldn’t have fled if not for fear of the law (of course that doesn’t absolve the consequences). And if drunk-driving laws save enough lives, that occasional, unpredictable risk is worth it.
With drug overdoses, we’re dealing with a more predictable and common outcome — and innocent bystanders aren’t in danger. Is strict enforcement of the rule in this case more important than an uncertain number or individuals who could otherwise be rescued? If great social harm would result, then probably so. I just have a hard time believing that it would.
Oh…my official answer is that the Slate writer is wrong, but only in being too absolute: there are compelling arguments on both sides. (I happen to find one side more compelling than the other.)
Your thoughts on the decriminalization of ALL drugs and the conversion to a treatment/administrative model, as Portugal has done?
Societal and cultural suicide.
Not that I defend complete legalization of drugs, but it doesn’t seem like that nation has collapsed. That said, it’s also much smaller, more homogeneous, and has nothing like the level of gang problems the US has, and I wonder if the smaller nations might be onto something that works for them.
In terms of size?
To an extent, yes they have.
That’s also why the Founders established us as a Federal arrangement, giving the States the vast majority of law making power, under the notion that smaller and more decentralized is typically better, more representative and more appropriate.
Ah, yes, that beacon of freedom, that font of inspiration and invention, that engine of prosperity, Portugal.
Perdoe-me, você grega, minha nação é poderosa e por minha causa! Eu me recuso a ouvir tais insultos apontada para minha grande império! I iniciou a chamada idade da descoberta! Era meu desejo de flanquear os muçulmanos infiéis bloqueando lucrativo comércio com o Oriente distante que levaram a tanta descoberta! Então alguma apreciação para nossos esforços! Eu ainda culpar os descendentes de meus irmãos e sua união com a Espanha podre que levou à queda da nossa glória. Você esperar e ver, isso vai acontecer com você!
Translation, anybody?
I usually give google translate a swing at things like that. Seems like some guy called Henry the Navigator is mad that you insulted his glorious empire or something…
Oh, great. Now I’ve got Portugal mad at me. One of today’s 3 visitors from there, I guess.
“Forgive me, you Greek, my nation is powerful and because of me! I refuse to hear such insults pointed to my great empire! I initiated the call Age of Discovery! It was my desire to outflank the Muslim infidels blocking lucrative trade with the Far East that led to so much discovery! So some appreciation for our efforts! I still blame the descendants of my brothers and his union with the rotten Spain that led to the downfall of our glory. You wait and see, it will happen to you!”
A disgruntled historical figure? Maybe he can send a fleet of carracks to silence Jack…
Thanks. Great comment! And I’ve never, ever, been called “you Greek!” before. My Mom would be so, so happy.
Sooo, Jack, just how many languages have you been yelled at in here?
Several. This is the first one I tried to understand, and I’m glad I did.
“Giving syringes to drug addicts so they can break the law without getting AIDS, for example, is ethically corrosive. The law enforcement authorities should not aid and abet law-breaking. Shooting up with illegal drugs makes you sick? Well, that’s why it’s illegal.”
Sure, that’s one view. Another might be that since these syringe based diseases can then be transmitted via sex or blood based injury means that they won’t be contained to the syringe using community for very long. It’s closely related to the 6 degrees of separation. How long would it take you, living your life as you are, to come across someone who has been injured and is bleeding, who doesn’t know he is sick because his wife cheated on him with a casual drug user who used a bad needle of his junkie friend?
Law enforcement and law must have integrity and principle. What principles are you advocating? “Whenever enforcing the law might lead to the death of an innocent individual through interaction with an apprehended lawbreaker, then enforcement should be suspended and the breaking of the law should be facilitated?” Seriously? Because living your life as you are, two of my friends or colleagues have been injured, and could have been killed, by out of work junkies seeking money to pay for illegal drugs. Applying your “giving out syringes saves innocent lives utiitarianism,” the solution must be for the government to supply the drugs to the junkies so they don’t need jobs to pay for them, and, of course, continue paying them government assistance for their lack of resources due to their self-incapacitation. But at least they aren’t robbing and killing anyone, so it’s all good.
This fails both Kant 101 and utilitarianism.
That’s fine. I don’t think the law, judicial processes, or law enforcement has much integrity anyway.
There’s plenty of points to make in favor of needle exchanges and plenty of points against them. Different people will look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions.
Quiz: Which rationalization is this? Or is it a new one: “It’s bad anyway, so a little bit worse doesn’t matter”?
1. 1a, 30, 33, 38, 39, 44…49, maybe? Convenient futility. I don’t know, it’s close to several, but maybe I need a new one. 50?
“Different people will look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions.”
That one I recognize: “It is what it is.”
Sure—and some of those conclusions are right, and some aren’t.
I think the rationalization is this:
I think good laws can have bad consequences and worse unintended consequences, so accommodating a way to mitigate the worse unintended consequences while preserving the bad known consequences will preserve the law rather than turn public opinion against the good law in the first place.
Otherwise known as “political expediency”.
“As always, the first proposals to address a drug crisis involve loosening enforcement.”
How can you loosen law enforcement unless you first have law enforcement? The actual first proposal to address a drug crisis, as always, is to pass more laws to put more people in jail. Now you’re just trying to bake that in, as if those original laws were the immutable laws of the universe rather than just the first thing politicians thought of at the time.
You’re right that Good Samaritans don’t need a law protecting them, but the truth is we’re not dealing with Good Samaritans. Do you really think these people will call for help even if it means going to jail? But at least with the Good Samaritan law you save the person overdosing, even if you let the other guy get away. Without the Good Samaritan law, you don’t save the person overdosing, and you still let the other guy get away, because he’s not going to call for help if it means jail. So unless you think most drugs users will risk jail to help someone having an overdoes, the biggest difference is whether or not someone dies.
You say that Good Samaritan laws and needle exchange are bad because they are a signal that the government isn’t committed to law enforcement where illegal drugs are concerned. But if being committed to law enforcement means you have to let people die, maybe you should consider that lack of commitment is not a bad thing. Maybe these laws are not deserving of that much commitment.
I fundamentally disagree, Mark. You’re not letting them die, the scum they hang out with are letting them die. They are voluntarily and knowingly engaged in dangerous illegal activity, and if the die, it’s their responsibility, not mine and not the government. OK, they die, essentially by their own hand, and that’s the point: DON”T DO THIS. Laws make no sense if they are jerked around this way. I wouldn’t advocate it, but a law that said that if you’re overdosing from an illegal drug, 911 isn’t an option, would make more sense to me than the laws endorsed by Slate.
I realize this is a tough left-right divide, but I don’t think the left approach ultinately saves any lives. It costs them by making risky behaviors seem less risky. I just spent a day in court, and every one of the men sentenced were illegal drug users, whether the offense was drug related or not. Stop it, or give up the culture to the reckless, stupid, cowardly and stoned.
Similarly, emergency medical care shouldn’t be an option for emphysema or lung attacks (smoking), heart attacks (too much McDonalds, lack of exercise), diabetes, I-don’t-like-to-wear-motorcycle-helmets, etc. Or how about idiots who go swimming out in the ocean at night and get lost at sea, backpackers who get lost, or the idiot who sticks his arm in the lion cage at the zoo?
My guess is that many 911 calls are the result of poor decision-making. You’re making an exception for drug use because it is illegal, but the reality is that these services exist because there is a public health need. I think there needs to be a balance between saving lives and looking the other way for lawbreakers who — most of the time — are only harming themselves.
I’m not fooling myself that heroin abusers will reform and become model citizens, but I’d rather live in a society where they are given the chance. Personally, I know one person who did completely turn his life around and has been sober for a decade (alcohol and drug abuse) — although I admit that I didn’t think he would be able to do it.
You are making more false analogies. There is no solid way to prove any one heart attack is linked to McDonald’s excess, the same flaw exists in your other examples. There is a solid way to prove an overdose is linked to a specific drug.
Also, you fall to the trap made by Tice, below… none of those examples are Illegal…so why would there be a worry about someone calling for aid?
This isn’t a question of whether or not the system will render aid if it can…this is a question of whether or not the person calling for aid should be let off the hook for making the call, though their conduct is also illegal.
I acknowledged that they aren’t illegal activities.
I didn’t see where you did that where you set up your false analogies as associated said assertion with those analogies.
But if you did, then what on earth did you hope to accomplish with your analogies, where the legality of the conduct is highly relevant?
You like to use the word analogy a lot.
I was merely pointing out that bad decisions often lead to medical consequences. And let me add “duh” to that premise. We can choose to pay for those consequences or not, but I wouldn’t single out drug use.
As for the “illegal” part, we also send an ambulance when someone crashes into a tree while texting and driving. That’s definitely illegal, but we do it.
To reiterate a point already made:
This isn’t a question of whether or not aid will be rendered…of course it will be rendered.
This isn’t a question of whether or not bad decisions have medical consequences.
This is a question of whether or not an individual breaking the law, gets off the hook if he seeks aid for a compatriot who broke the exact same law, but by moral luck is about to die because of said law breaking and will likely also still be punished for said law breaking.
Here’s what I said, that you seem to have ignored:
“This isn’t a question of whether or not the system will render aid if it can…this is a question of whether or not the person calling for aid should be let off the hook for making the call, though their conduct is also illegal.”
That is literally a few posts up.
Your analogies seem to imply we ought not to render aid or call for aid when people make stupid decisions, but you don’t realize the importance of legality to the situation being discussed.
Analogies: I use words often, when they describe concepts that are used often…funny how that works! Do people complain to you for saying “Good Morning” too much even though mornings seem to happen every day?
If you don’t understand how legality is important to this scenario, I’m afraid further elucidation on the topic is near impossible.
Beth said – “I acknowledged that they aren’t illegal activities.”
Then perhaps it is better to compare it to another illegal activity such as prostitution where prostitutes are too afraid to call the police when a crime is committed against them because they know they are likely to be arrested and their complaint be ignored.
Better analogy.
I was keeping it in the public health context. But certainly, to the extent the crime is assault or rape, crimes against prostitutes are under-reported.
On the topic of “Good Samaritan Laws” I actually agree. A law has been broken, and there are consequences, and we don’t often hand people get out of jail free cards for exhibiting behavior that they should already be inclined to do.
That said… What we’ve done is put a disincentive to doing the right thing. We can say that it is ethical to obey the law (And generally be right), but once the law has been broken, and someone is in trouble, we’ve offered them a choice: Either let the guy beside you die, or go to jail, possibly for decades. So while it’s absolutely ethical to save that life and go to prison, I think from a policy perspective, it is unreasonable to think that’s going to happen.
If the choice was: Let your friend die, or face a steep fine and 30 days in forced detox, that choice might not be so hard to people in this situation. The problem with that is (And you’ve pointed this out before) relaxing drug laws could be seen as condoning the behavior. This is the consequence of having insane drug laws to being with. The bar is set so stupidly high I don’t think anyone actually thinks the penalties are reasonable, but how do you lower that bar once it’s set that high?
Someone used Portugal as an example above, I’ll use Canada. We’ve decriminalized pot, we don’t have decades long sentences for non violent crime, and our crime rates regarding drugs by almost every empirical measure are lower per capita than American ones, with none of the negative effects some people insist will happen. Arguing that America’s drug laws as they stand are necessary is per se arguing that American people and culture are worse than people and culture elsewhere.
more on the stupidity of Good Samaritan laws….. Could you imagine if we made the same exceptions elsewhere? Someone is beating their spouse, it gets vicious and someone is bleeding out on the floor, would you offer the spouse amnesty if they picked up the phone and called an ambulance? In what world could giving abusers a set of circumstances where they face no consequence NOT cause more domestic violence?
would you offer the ABUSER.
I tried to de-gender this and not it reads like garbage. But you get the idea.
“So while it’s absolutely ethical to save that life and go to prison, I think from a policy perspective, it is unreasonable to think that’s going to happen.”
But that’s a kissing cousin to the argument “you may as well make it legal, because people are going to do it anyway” or the “make it illegal and you’ll only drive it underground” argument…
It’s unreasonable to think alot of things will happen that we hope will happen, but should we undermine other principles in the process?
I suppose it boils down to: is there an absolute obligation by the government to try to save someone’s life even if their life is threatened by an activity they placed themselves in,
even if that activity is against the law for the very reason it causes life-threatening scenarios,
even if it means permitting another person who is breaking the exact same law but has the moral luck of not having their life threatened off the hook, even?
An absolute obligation? I don’t think so. Although it probably wouldn’t be hard to find someone who thought it was. I think it’s important to consider what we expect out of a government, why we expect those things, and what mechanisms will be necessary for those expectations.
The fact is America’s justice system is broken, you’ve built prisons at the average rate of one every 10 days since the 1990s, to keep up with ‘demand’ from the war on drugs. A war that has 1) failed to curb usage, and 2) created a system where certain non-violent crimes carry significantly higher sentences than certain violent crimes. If America punished thievery by cutting off the hands of thieves, is it wrong to argue that perhaps we should instead incarcerate them? I mean, loosening up limb-loss punishments might increase theft. The worst thing is that there isn’t an easy fix… As Jack has said, ramping down those sentences could be seen as implicit acceptance of the behaviors.
And that’s the rub. America’s drug laws are untenable, but reducing them could be disastrous*, so apparently we’re going to accept the status quo. The problem is that the status quo creates problems uniquely American that cost lives. And if the government has created a series of events that create a disincentive to saving a life, then maybe the government does bear some responsibility.
tl:dr “While we cannot give carte blanche to illegal behavior, we could reform. If we choose not to reform in the face of a problem that is 1) Artificial and 2) Contributing to people’s deaths, then we are essentially accepting those deaths on a utilitarian basis, and therefore bear some responsibility.
*I’m being generous, I think that if we use the examples of places that have done just that with something between little or no problems as a roadmap, it puts the lie to that line of thinking, unless you believe that Americans are uniquely effected by drugs.
No doubt, but I read your comment as a slight defense of this Good Samaritan law as though “at least it’s something” is a valid defense of Reform. Pull bandaids off before putting new ones on, don’t just put another one on top.
G. K. Chesterton said it well:
“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
I like that.
Look, I’m a firm believer in taking responsibility for your own behavior. If OD’ing means you die, you got nobody to blame but yourself. It’s not my job to save your life after you have done something stupid….drugs, whatever. Sorry.
No doubt, but is that the question? The question isn’t even whether or not once a call for help is made to an authority that has pre-committed to help, help will try to come. But, whether or not leniency should be offered to equally culpable parties who make the call for help when they are just as guilty of the conduct that led to the need to call for help.
As Jack’s analysis goes, I agree. No leniency should be offered simply because an individual in that situation faced with their own punishment or their associate’s death, ought to make the right decision and I don’t care if their self-imposed mental state causes them to make a selfish decision.
1) This could easily segue into a discussion on Laws that Compel Assistance – in which case, the junkie that doesn’t call for help is then liable for not seeking aid.
2) This could also tie into any number of discussions regarding how punishments are meted out in cases of chemically impaired miscreants.
No, it is not a question. I am not in favor of Good Samaritan laws in the described circumstances. I am, sort of, in favor of your number 1.
But where does it stop? Wouldn’t cases become messy and cumbersome to society trying to prove when a person *could* have helped but *didn’t*, with an excessive burden on actually innocent people vs actually guilty people? Which I think flies against our system of trying to unburden the actually innocent, though it may let some actually guilty through the cracks?
Why I said “sort of”.
Fair enough.
What about alcohol? It, too, is a drug, and it’s quite possible to OD on it. Should we re-criminalize alcohol, and punish those who drink it or brew it?
I don’t think that’s relevant to the discussion…could you show me how it is?
I’ll try. As the laws currently stand, some drug users are punished for mere possession, but some are not. Is this a principled exception? I say that it’s not, and since we’re on the subject of consistency in our laws, this deserves to be addressed.
Jack’s objection to these so-called “Good Samaritan” laws is that they’re an unprincipled exception. I agree. But when it comes to alcohol, we stopped bothering with exceptions and just made it legal. Was that wrong? Should we legalize other drugs, or criminalize alcohol?
So as long as alcohol is legal, it poses no relevancy to the topic of “Good Samaritan” laws in this kind of situation?
The relevance is, I admit, tangential, though I’m glad I asked because Jack made a great case for the criminalization of alcohol, which I wasn’t expecting (but really I should have been, because Jack is remarkably consistent and observant and I feel a little stupid now for not expecting it).
I think it’s worth noting that Justin Peters favors these “Good Samaritan” reporting laws because they’re a kind of under-the-table decriminalization of drugs; perhaps Mr. Peters hopes that these laws are a step towards full legalization. I brought up alcohol because I thought that the legalization of alcohol was a good example of things being better after ending a drug prohibition, but Jack disagrees. I’m hoping we can find some more common ground.
I hate that argument, because it takes a relevant fact and abuses it. We can’t criminalize alcohol now, though the attempt was noble, because it has been embedded in the culture for centuries. Alcohol costs so much in lives, families ruined, pain, rape, death, businesses destroyed, that if there was a way to wipe it out completely, it would be absolutely worth doing. That’s NOT an argument for adding one, two, three, ten more deadly and destructive drugs to the culture. It’s a decisive reason not to. Alcohol kills more people than guns by far, and has none of the good uses and benefits of guns, yet the same people who want to ban guns think its cool to legalize more life-wrecking alcohols.
I’m sorry, but I think it is moronic.
Thank you for the response. However, I disagree about the nobility of Prohibition. It was not ennobling to the government that tried to enforce it; it was utterly corrupting. Modern prohibition has been similarly corrupting; it’s given us asset forfeiture laws that legalize theft, it’s empowered a DEA that collaborates with spies to illegally invade privacy, and it’s utterly ruined research in developing better pain medicines.
Governments are powerful and power-hungry institutions. Giving the right to regulate our personal drug use is too dangerous. These “Good Samaritan” reporting laws are silly, but at least they’re a step in the right direction.
Wrong. Asset forfeiture has nothing to do with it, and Prohibition was a bottom up phenomenon, pushed especially by women, who were sick of being beaten by drunk husbands. The whole economy was fueled by alcohol sales, and it was corrupting. The nation voted for Prohibition, and admittedly at an unacceptable cost, it worked to an extent. The alcohol fixation was weakened a bit in the culture.
You’re making the worst kind of slippery slope rationalization. There are few greater health threats to Americans than alcohol–good regulations do not inevitably lead to excessive ones. making big soft drinks illegal a la Bloomberg is overreach, not stopping kids from damaging their brains because they see their folks getting legally stoned.
And what you forget, what people always forget, is that when the government says “this is wrong,” it matters a lot. And when they say, “OK–go ahead, go crazy,” it is like saying it’s right. It’s not right. It’s the government’s duty to say so clearly, and it does that by saying: “It’s against the law.”
Do we drink more now than we did before prohibition?
From what I’ve read, per capita consumption and rates of alcohol addiction are significantly lower than they were before prohibition. So it did achieve some of what it meant to do, but only some. And at great cost. Alcohol may be a scourge, but on the whole, it’s a scourge that humanity isn’t willing to get rid of.
That’s exactly correct, every word. Unfortunately.
Was it because of prohibition or because of education? Also, what role does government welfare play into this? Historically, the poor abuse drugs and alcohol more than the rich. As an example, in the 18th C., the entire city of London almost was lost to gin. I think every generation drinks a little less than the previous one. I remember my grandparents, great-uncles, great-aunts (on both sides) — all of them were lushes by my standards — drinks start at 4 pm! My dad and his friends’ generation — all of them would have a mixed drink or a beer every night after work. My generation? We drink wine with dinner — maybe, and certainly not every night. A mixed drink happens maybe once a month.
I think you misspelled 4 AM….
Much, much, MUCH less. Of course, there’s more to do. That’s a lot of it.
I know there’s probably a fallacy in here, but:
Taking the model of prohibition, Alcohol was by far more damaging a substance, and prohibition much less costly. Wouldn’t using the same logic “We repealed prohibition because even though it was a good thing to do, it was proving too costly” lead to a legalization stance? Especially in the face of the results of prohibition?
I think Jack’s objection though lies with the 1st half: Alcohol, though being far more costly, was also far more ingrained in the culture than drugs are, which is why Prohibition was far more costly (even though arguably less costly than the War on Drugs).
If drug usage is much less prevalent than alcohol consumption, the argument is that a war on drugs *should* be easier. But on average drugs also happen to be far more addictive than alcohol, which proves to make the “war” harder than prohibition… of course, one could also say that had the Federal Government been as massive during the Prohibition as it is now, we’d have seen just as many incarcerations then as now.
As I see it, the big hang up in people’s minds other than the obvious “Drugs Harm People” is the “I shouldn’t have to foot the bill for these guys medical expenses and government associated care”.
If we really wanted to let it go, we’d have to take a look at ourselves and decide: Ok, if junkies want to kill themselves horribly and slowly, then let them, if they can’t pay their medical bills, then too bad, they don’t receive care – we all live with our decisions.
(of course, associated with that Libertarian argument must be a Libertarian acknowledgement that fewer laws typically require harsher punishments if those crimes are associated with or derived from the conduct they just legalized. That is to say: you just drove 50 mph over the speed limit? ok…because you were HAMMERED?? Ok, now you really get punished. Or: you assaulted that guy? Here’s your penalty…oh it was while you were BLITZED?? now you really get punished.)
I don’t think this is entirely a slippery-slope scenario. The so-called war on drugs absolutely has corrupted government, corroded due process, and eroded individual rights.
That we should get the government out of as many individual decisions as possible is a perfectly logical conclusion to reach from the evidence. (The line between government and individual has to be drawn; the tricky question is where.)
One of government’s legitimate roles is in regulating things like this. But instead of regulating it (for instance, like cigarettes), they’ve simply criminalized a whole raft of drugs, many of them very dangerous, others quite benign. And for decades now, the operating assumption has been that at some point these drugs will all be so illegal that no one will dare to produce them or even to want them anymore.
If it’s the government’s duty to make laws against drug abuse, then it’s also their duty to make better ones. Because the laws we have clearly aren’t working. And they’re doing a lot of harm to constitutional governance at the same time.
I think I understand the disconnect between us on this issue. You are emphasizing the things that a government should do. I am emphasizing the things that a government will do.
While good regulations do not always lead to excessive regulations, powerful regulations do inevitably lead to abuse of power. I brought up asset forfeiture because it’s a tool that law enforcement asked for to fight the Drug War, but they’ve ended up using it on innocent folks carrying large amounts of cash or just driving expensive cars. Then there’s the subject of searches and raids. Have you raid Radley Balko’s Overkill? I have and I recommend it; it has many, many accounts of cops busting into houses and killing people over a few ounces of cannabis, not to mention the many people who were entirely innocent but got raided anyway (remember little Bou Bou, who had a grenade thrown in his crib?)
My argument is that the government cannot be given the power to criminalize drugs because it cannot be trusted with the power to criminalize drugs. You say that it sends a bad message, to which I say: True, but this is more important. Fighting the Drug War is costing the lives of innocent people, often doing more harm than good to the drug addicts it should be helping, reducing the liberty and threatening the property of all of us, and costing millions of dollars every year without an equally large benefit in public health or safety, and the government doesn’t care because they like having the power the Drug War guarantees them (consider some of the dirty tricks the government pulled to criminalize cannabis, or the fact that the CIA made money selling drugs). We need a better, smarter, more trustworthy weapon than our government to fight the scourge of addiction. If our only weapon is government, then we’d be better off with nothing at all, because our government keeps shooting us in the metaphorical foot.
If it can’t be trusted to declare that dangerous things are dangerous and that addictive and destructive conduct is bad for society, and that includes backing up that declaration by acting accordingly, then it can’t be trusted to govern at all. It’s a basic duty of government: set standards that make the survival of society more rather than less likely. Society needs government. Balko’s a libertarian; he verges on being an anarchist. He calls attention to abuses of government power, and that’s good, so we can address them. Eliminating government is not a rational option.
Thank you.
Mr. Irony here. Having been in Brooklyn (Bedford-Stuyvesant) a little bit in the late ’60s and early ’70s (and wasn’t it cintillating and lovely back then) visiting my former high school teacher who was then running methadone clinics, wasn’t it the heroin epidemic of that time that was behind the declaration of the war on drugs? People were dying. Most of them were poor black women who were mothers who’d been strung out on heroin by predatory dealers.
So now, here were are in 2015 and what’s purportedly destroying the black community and ruining peoples’ rights? The war on drugs. We’re in the middle of another heroin epidemic and the solution is fewer attempts to discourage and frustrate heroin use?
Sorry, I’m not buying it.
And by the way, I think this is largely a generational thing. My forty year old son thinks the war on drugs is an evil created by Dick Cheney.
And one kid I knew in high school and another I knew in college both died of heroin overdoses before they were very well into their twenties. Both as white as the driven snow and very well to do, but dead as door nails for the last forty or so years. Both were also dealing.