Skip to main content

The War On Drugs & Your Bathroom Closet?

Given that in California things are different, you need to know that you can buy medical marijuana from vending machines and even learn how to buy it online. This development clearly shows that while the "war on drugs" may be worthwhile for the self-righteous and excessively uptight, it is not working any better than Refer Madness worked to prevent the spread of marijuana in the 1960's.

The problem with all of this is that the war on drugs does not work, costs too much, and has expanded the size and scope of government dramatically. It has harmed more people than it has helped.

It simply makes a substance that people, typically very sick people with cancer want to use to ease their pain verboten, or forbidden.

In the same way that Adolph Hitler made a War on Drugs, an integral part of his school of fascist aesthetic realism, we have adopted it as a given in our culture. We tend to forget as this site reminds us that, a precursor to our war on drugs in the "States...[was] Hitler's War on Drugs: Rauschgiftbekämpfung [The Fight Against Drugs] in the Third Reich, itself a long-forgotten importation of American Prohibition wedded to Nazi racial hygiene and a police state apparatus ever-ready to invoke the 'wholesome popular sentiment' expressed in the National Socialist-realist aesthetic to legitimize and enforce the performance principle of German fascism."

Statistics illustrate that "47% of high school students have tried marijuana"; that means almost one out of two kids have used marijuana. Even the plethora of government organizations that control "substance abuse" among teens clearly show a noticeable rise in abuse of all kinds by teenagers; nothing has stopped this increase over the years.

The DEA itself, that bastion of the War on Drugs, has approved a limited clinical trial of Medical Marijuana in where else....California.

So, in the end, we can speculate that Ron Paul , Tucker Carlson and the Libertarians advice on the war on drugs is correct. They all imply that by outlawing things that people can use for medical problems, you create an industry of things people cannot do. By doing that you increase the chances they will actually want to do them for reasons not related to medicine and create a lucrative black market in them. Of course, we will never know the answer to all the obvious questions this position raises unless we begin to change the way we legislate and unless we begin to allow things we once thought were verboten, or at least legalize them.

I know if I ever get glaucoma or MS, I will want medical marijuana; we can argue about the virtues and pitfalls legalizing drugs all we want, but the Cato institute has had it right all along.

The problem with prohibitions of all types, is that they are profitable, and the more profitable they become the more everyone has a vested interest in keeping them in place, even if they have a negative impact on society as a whole, and even if they give the cops permission to go through your bathroom closets.

Comments

Anonymous said…
A simple primer on prohibition is available here:
http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/candy_5497___article.html/

It appears skittles are the new gateway drug of choice in schools.
Anonymous said…
Alan, that is hillarious!

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...