Against the drug laws

[come_to_think]

Opposing the drug laws: one good and three bad reasons.

0 Freedom!

It is mean and foolish to raise the price of other people's consolations, however bad those consolations may seem.

1 "They can't be enforced."

1.1 To some extent they can be & are. Raising the price of something is bound to deter its consumption.
1.2 Many legitimate laws "can't be enforced". Most instances of littering and most traffic offenses are not detected and penalized, but that is not an argument against trash or traffic regulations.
1.3 Enforcement difficulty is arguably a saving grace of the drug laws. If drugtaking could be easily and cheaply prevented, such laws would be multiplied and would become so oppressive that it might be worth a civil war to get rid of them. As it is, we more or less put up with them and keep the peace.

2 "They bring the law into contempt."

2.1 Not necessarily. Many people are glad that there are laws that most people break, so that the police have the power to harass lowlifes -- so long, of course, as the definition of lowlife suits those people.
2.2 That contempt may be a price we are willing to pay (cf. 1.2).
2.3 Moderate contempt for the law may actually be a good thing; too much respect for law (as in Germany) may make tyranny easier, tho too little respect (as in peasant countries) may make it necessary.

3 "They are racist."

3.1 They are enforced preferentially against black people, but that's not what's wrong with them. Many other laws, including legitimate ones, are also so used. These days, however, racism is the fashionable evil in some circles, and it seems wicked to call anything wrong without calling it racist.

Of course, in building a political coalition, it is convenient---perhaps even necessary---to make use of bad reasons as well as good ones. That is one of many things that make politics a tiresome subject.

Comments

[madfilkentist]

I agree that claims of racism are overused, but there's a plausible case that existing drug laws have a racial bias built into them. The penalties for crack cocaine are generally much higher for a comparable effect than for powder cocaine, though the federal disparity was reduced in 2010. Powder cocaine is relatively more often used by whites and crack by blacks. The disparity arose from a moral panic over crack in the eighties, facilitated by the largely black usage of it.

Does this mean the law is "racist"? That's arguable, but it's reasonable to say there has been a race-related bias in the law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-an-early-biden-crime-bill-created-the-sentencing-disparity-for-crack-and-cocaine-trafficking/2019/07/28/5cbb4c98-9dcf-11e9-85d6-5211733f92c7_story.html

[come_to_think]

I dare say the crack-cocaine prohibition was aimed at blacks. And it does seem that various drug laws were originally aimed at various groups regarded as alien -- the Chinese in the case of opiates, and the Mexicans in the case of marijuana. That shows up in the propaganda at the time. I suppose one might such groups as races, at least in the sloppy minds of the people who were afraid of them. However, that is ancient history by now. The range of drugs has expanded, and the targets of the laws have changed.