Drug War

Drug Busts Still Lead Arrest Statistics, Even as Marijuana Prohibition Fades

The law enforcement establishment has to keep itself occupied with something, doesn't it?


As troubled as our country is at the moment, divided between two main mutually contemptuous (and contemptible) political blocs, facing a rising generation seemingly frightened by the exchange of ideas inherent in a devotion to protecting free speech, and apparently committed to placing either a psychopath or a sociopath in the White House, at least the country is winding down the depredations caused by drug prohibition. Four states have legalized marijuana for recreational use, and many more have made it available as a medical treatment. Their ranks are likely to be joined after November by—

What's that you say? Cops are still filling out their arrest quotas with drug busts?

Holy crap. You're right.

"The highest number of arrests were for drug abuse violations (estimated at 1,488,707 arrests)," the FBI announced about its recently released crime statistics for 2015. Drug busts were followed by "larceny-theft (estimated at 1,160,390), and driving under the influence (estimated at 1,089,171)."

By comparison, there were 505,681 arrests for violent crimes, and 1,463,213 busts for property crimes of any sort.

I already know the naysayers are going to chime in with complaints that the people busted weren't all simple users. There were dealers in that mix! And manufacturers! And some folks dealing while manufacturing and using.

Well, so what?

In most areas of human life, we recognize that industry and commerce are perfectly peaceful activities—and beneficial ones that produce prosperity and put food on the table. Drug laws may make industry and commerce in disfavored intoxicants illegal, but that doesn't render such activities inherently less peaceful and prosperity-inducing. As we saw with our national misadventure in banning alcohol, it takes a prohibition to introduce violence into a trade that might otherwise be as work-a-day as any other.

"[I]ncreases in enforcement of drug and alcohol prohibition have been associated with increases in the homicide rate, and auxiliary evidence suggests this positive correlation reflects a causal effect of prohibition enforcement on homicide," Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron concluded in 1999 after studying the issue in-depth. "The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs," he emphasized 10 years later.

But for the sake of argument, let's concede the point. Trafficking is bad, mmkay?

If we dig deeper into those FBI figures, we find that only 16.1 percent of them were for sale and manufacturing. Possession made up 83.9 percent of drug arrests in 2015. That is, the vast majority of arrests for all categories of drugs had nothing to do with making or selling illegal substances, if that's the sort of thing that matters to you.

And yes, those drug arrests represent the lowest level of marijuana busts in 20 years. But that's a drop after a big surge during that time, and we still saw over 643,000 arrests for the leafy stuff (over 574,000 if you want to stick to that "possession" distinction). And again, a total of 1,488,707 busts by police just for using or trading in marijuana, cocaine, meth, and other officially disfavored intoxicants of people's choice—the largest category of arrests.

That's a lot of folks slapped into handcuffs over stuff that makes everybody but government officials and their hangers-on feel good. (Well, a lot of them like the stuff too, but they rarely have to worry that they'll be wrestled to the ground as a consequence.)

And never mind the outcome of those arrests—whether or not possession busts ultimately result in hard time. Any encounter with the police is likely to be an unpleasant one. It's astounding how many people picked up on even minor charges manage to expire under mysterious circumstances.

As we've seen before, prohibition is a bit of an industry all of its own. Harvard historian Lisa McGirr writes in her 2015 book, The War on Alcohol: Prohibition and the Rise of the American State, of the "federal penal state" that emerged from Prohibition. "The war on alcohol and the war on drugs were symbiotic campaigns," McGirr told Reason in an interview. "Those two campaigns emerged together, [and] they had the same shared…logic. Many of the same individuals were involved in both campaigns."

That penal state at the local, state, and federal level hasn't shrunk an iota in personnel or power in the intervening years. "There are more than 900,000 sworn law enforcement officers now serving in the United States, which is the highest figure ever," the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund boasts on its website. Those officers need something to do to justify their employment, and while the FBI reports an uptick in violent crime in 2015, that's after many years of decline–and overall arrests still dropped. "Arrests of juveniles for all offenses decreased 8.4 percent in 2015 when compared with the 2014 number; arrests of adults decreased 3.0 percent," according to the Uniform Crime Report.

Now the war against marijuana is winding down—several more state are likely to loosen restrictions through ballot initiatives this year. Out of a sheer lack of opportunity, marijuana arrests will have to drop in jurisdictions where the stuff just isn't illegal. That leaves other drugs, but they don't have the same popularity, and seem unlikely to keep "the highest figure ever" busy making arrests.

But a never-ending war on booze, or drugs, or other forbidden consensual activities has kept all those cops and prison guards and interagency task forces gainfully employed through the decades.

It makes you wonder what category of prohibition will lead the arrest statistics a few years from now.

NEXT: Why Is The FDA Dragging its Feet on Admitting Snus is Safer Than Smoking?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc. were all decriminalized tomorrow, the cops would still find something to arrest and harass people for. They’re not going to give up the money and power that the drug war’s given them.

    1. Cigarette smokers are a surly lot, they could go after them.

      1. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $4800 for a week, Working from home saves money in several ways.I love this. I’ve recently started taking the steps to build my freelance Job career so that I can work from home. Go this web and click to tech tab to start your work… http://www.Trends88.Com

    2. Repeat as necessary: “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted ? and you create a nation of law-breakers ? and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

    3. Maybe we could make trans fats or vaping illegal. I mean, work with me people, there are no bad ideas here.

    4. That is why immediately after making weed legal, you need to cut police budgets by 50%+. This way, the police don’t get to just pick another money making scheme to put all those ex-drug cops on. Fire them and make the remaining police earn their paychecks. Demand that they solve theft crimes. Demand that they walk police beats.

      Demand that they follow the rules like everyone else.

  2. “The highest number of arrests were for drug abuse violations”

    is there a separate category for drug use violations?

    Also, Reason, i think i just came up with a good research project for your galley slaves: log the pretext/justifications for a roadside search as more and more states start legalizing the evil weed. It just dawned on me that you can’t really smell meth, coke, or heroin unless it’s right under your nose.

    Anyone want to bet that a jump in “watery eyes and nervous movements” moves in near-perfect inverse proportion to legalization? It’s a lot easier to seize a car when you “smelled something”.

    1. Anyone want to bet that a jump in “watery eyes and nervous movements” moves in near-perfect inverse proportion to legalization?

      Are you sure “inverse proportion” is what you mean here? I think you are asking an interesting question.

      1. I think you are asking an interesting question

        Indeed, I’d be surprised if the amount of Cannabis related DUIs and vehicle seizures does anything other than steadily rise. Having said that I don’t believe the actual number of *impaired drivers* will have significantly changed. So in short, a big roll out of cannabis directed roadside checks. Which of course serves to increase the sizes of police forces in general.

      2. I must have meant to use he declining number of states making it illegal as the comparison – no, I didn’t mean inverse as written.

        But yeah, I’d be willing to bet there’s not a significant decline in roadside searches, just a shift in nebulous reasons given.

    2. Article 4 of the preamble should take care of the first part of your scenario.
      The 4th amendment should take care of the second part.
      Know your rights, and stick to them. Don’t let cops bully you. Make them get that warrant signed by a judge. If they do, then question the judge, and make sure it was the judge that signed it.
      However this only works if you’re not driving 90 mph, while finishing off a 40 of Schlitz malt liquor, after smoking a bowl of skunkweed.

  3. Back in yee ancientee timees, government was just local thugs, gradually gussied up with gods. It gradually morphed into nations with borders, and the thugs added parliaments and other trappings to disguise themselves to an increasingly educated and informed populace. WW I was a turning point, the last of the old hereditary thugs. But thuggery and coercive government has been at the heart of it all along.

    As long as nations depended on raw resources, especially farms and later coal and iron, territorial control was vital. I think Hitler was the last thug to not get the message that human capital had become more important than square miles. Lebensraum was a throwback, and to top that off with murdering the inhabitants of newly captured land was something that even ancient kings generally avoided.

    I believe anarchy would be sustainable now because human capital is paramount. Its economy would boom without thuggish parasites. It could be destroyed but not conquered — installing all the trappings of coercive government from scratch — taxation, the command and control bureaucracy, legislatures — would destroy its golden eggs of efficiency and flexibility. People used to freedom would not easily accept one solitary choice for all that, even if they despised what others chose to do with their freedom. Much better to belong to your own little like-minded society than accept one overarching thuggery which you didn’t like and had little chance of influencing.

    1. This makes me laugh.

      It is easier to take than to produce, so there will always be people who use force to take and they will fill any vacuum of power left to them. Even if you magically waved them out of existance, governments would return.

      This is even more pronounced when you look to the philosophies and beliefs of most people of the world. Islam is a system of government masquerading as a religion, and you’d have to magically wash away that faith at the same time you rid the others.

      You’re discounting human nature and letting utopian optimism cloud your judgement.

      1. No, I do not discount human nature and the thieves that are everywhere. In fact, I rely on it. Thieves want value for money. Personal thieves, even small gangs of thieves, do not get a free reign just because there is no government; people will defend themselves and thieves do not take injury lightly. Look at rutting deer who bash antlers but seldom cause injury, or lions, tigers, wolves, etc, who seldom injure each other.

        Nations are even less likely to invade for precisely the reasons I listed — invading to take land and raw resources was fine when that’s all an economy was, but it is such a small part of modern economies that it is a financially ruinous decision, especially when there is no existing government bureaucracy to co-opt, as the Nazis did in France in 1940.

        You are stuck in the past.

        1. Lets look further into the past. Lets look at the organized, mobile bands like vikings, bedouins and mongols. They raided and pillaged people who defended themselves, and their operations grew because they were successful at getting more by taking than they produced. They eventually did grow into governments, because it put them into better proximity to the harvest and reduced the amount of resistance and risk. The benefits of free exchange are not obvious, even to people getting them. Immediate opportunities are easier to grasp. Human capital is a resource that can be seized just like any movable chattel.

          Even in your own precept that “modern economies” have value-generating mechanisms not directly tied to physical resources, these are just a crown resting atop a traditional economy. Sure you get Venezuela when they seize the traditional economic base and abuse the crap out of it, but the crown is still dependant upon the base to even exist, let alone produce value.

          1. Yes, Vikings and others back when farms were the driving force in every economy and occupying land or grabbing its bounty was the best way to get rich.

            It ain’t that way any more. It wasn’t that way when Hitler grabbed his Lebensraum either, and it’s one of the reasons he lost.

            Venezuela? That’s an incentive for others to copy?

      2. Yes, exactly. Anarcho-capitalism would last for about a week before it was filled with a much worse system than exists today, too short for the gains from a regulation-free economy to overcome the existence of the predatory population being unencumbered by law enforcement.

        Say what you will about the US, but the system’s degradation from liberty to tyranny has been quite protracted. I liken liberal systems of government to radioactive isotopes, and ours seems to have quite a long half life.

        1. The Icelandic Free State lasted over 330 years in its decentralized, virtual anarchic form.

          1. I don’t think an isolated island the size of Kentucky with a population less than that of Barstow is a great example for the rest of human society to emulate. You may as well point to some successful kibbutzim to show that communism is not doomed to failure.

          2. Iceland only has about 335k people in 2015. It is very likely that Iceland had far less back then. The less people, the easier it can be to make communes work. Dissenters can form bigger groups when there are bigger populations.

            In other words, what works for Iceland and Switzerland would not necessarily work the USA with 330M people.

        2. What predatory population? Most people have far too much invested in a stable society to either pillage themselves, or put up with pillagers. This is not farmland where you can go seize crops and be rich, and very few people are the wreckers of lore. Even the Vikings wanted something valuable, not just wrecking.

          1. This is where you are being intentionally obtuse.

            Just look at the people “Invested in a stable society” today who are pillagers and who are putting up with them. And I’m not talking fraud, corruption and non-violent theft, I mean actual pillaging.

            1. And taking women for their own to supplement their low populations and expand genetic pools.

              Democracy and rule of law, has fundamentally changed the World. Before these two concepts, life was super cheap and life was very unpredictable. Democracy and rule of law gave average people stability in their government (which used to take whatever it wanted) and stability in their lives. Life expectancy went up accordingly.

          2. Seriously? What predatory population? RTFA: 505,681 arrests for violent crimes, and 1,463,213 busts for property crimes of any sort in 2015, or roughly 5 for every 1,000 people, and that’s in a country with record low crime and 4 cops on every corner. Some people simply give no fucks.

            And it’s not like that’s the sum total of those who would not hesitate to pilfer their neighbors if presented with the opportunity to do so and no risk of formal reprimand. Each one has 5 associates who would not hesitate to do the same provided their buddies already agreed and another 5 that would support them doing so provided their efforts were aimed at the right targets, however ill-defined.

            1. 90% of those crimes are only criminal because there’s a law saying so, not because the act itself harms anyone.

              “Ooooh, we need a government because without a government, all those people breaking government laws would have to turn to real crime to fulfill their ambition of being criminals.”

      3. The biggest difference is that the thugs will always be recognized as thugs. And thus, human nature exposed in its truest form.

        The state however, is the thug who’s violence has been legitimized. I’d say the utopian optimism is thinking the state once established would ever stop its thuggery.

        1. You can fight that thuggery too. It is really hard to fight legitimized government violence and theft. Especially in a Democracy where most people have things to lose if there were a violent revolution. I would be for it, if we returned to the Constitution.

          Most people are chickenshits though.

      4. Apparently, people cannot defend themselves or creative cooperative defensive pacts.

        Nope, the takers will always win. Thus sayeth Hobbes.

        1. And what happens to that cooperative defensive pact?

          It begins to argue that everyone it protects needs to contribute as beneficiaries, and will itself slowly morph into a government.

          1. Perhaps. Perhaps NOT.

            It can’t be said as some sure thing. No more that it is (or was) a sure thing that American democracy will devolve in to majority oppression or ignoring constitutional procedures when convenient. Ideas, beliefs and conservative instincts are powerful forces.

        2. They can. They likely won’t. The takers are likely to be more motivated to achieve their ends and better organized to boot. And due to the familiarity of such a system they are likely to be supported well enough to achieve those ends and claim the consent of the governed.

          Honestly, the only way I could see an anarchist society existing long-term in such a way that they would still be recognizably anarchist would be if they started fresh with a motivated population which properly ingrained anarchist ideals and the associated responsibilities from birth. I think you’re sorely mistaken if you expect that it would succeed in any reasonably sized piece of America in the early 21st century.

          1. They likely won’t.

            Why not?

            The takers are likely to be more motivated to achieve their ends and better organized to boot.


            I thought the whole point was that taking is easy. Now it’s sounding like it takes some work.

            1. Why not?

              Have you ever met people? Have you ever managed people? Expecting that they will spontaneously form self defense cooperatives is simply naive. Most can’t even be bothered to vote. Apathy is our preferred mode.


              Incentives. It would be a high risk, high reward move to attempt to organize a motivated core of supporters into the government of a region which lacks one, and it would be a high risk, low reward move to directly oppose it and offer the status quo in its place.

    2. I’m pretty much an anarchist philosophically and temperamentally, but I tend to agree with those who argue that anarchy as most people imagine it is unlikely to last if it happens, or even come about in the first place.

      To my mind, anarchy is just reality. Government isn’t some special thing. It’s just people. A well organized gang, if you will. People will ignore the law if they deem the risk worth it.

  4. … apparently committed to placing either a psychopath or a sociopath in the White House,…

    Which one is which, pray tell?

    1. They are both both, sometimes alternating, sometimes in combination.

  5. Instead of pontificating to the choir, it might be more interesting if Reason would attempt to seek out and interview noted prohibitionists such as Sheldon Alderson, who unabashedly donates money to politicians who continue to support prohibition. If the obvious link between money, politics and the law can be suitably exposed, you might get more politicians with the nerve to back away from these sources.

    1. Politicians with nerve? Perhaps you will become the next in this litany of arrests?

  6. as Julia replied I didn’t know that a mom able to make $5776 in 1 month on the computer .
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  7. Something, something, too much money in it…

  8. Sigh, we LIVE LONGER and we don’t have DICTATORS. Wasn’t that made clear? It’s stuff like this that harshes the optimism buzz.

  9. Possession made up 83.9 percent of drug arrests in 2015. That is, the vast majority of arrests for all categories of drugs had nothing to do with making or selling illegal substances, if that’s the sort of thing that matters to you.

    Demand destruction. Works every time.

  10. Would you rather police focus on crimes that involve victims? Do you know how tedious it is to deal with victims? You have to interview them, keep them up to day on your progress, run their names to see if they have any outstanding warrants, while getting victim statements look around their place to see if they have any drugs or other infractions you can charge them for…

    It’s a lot of work.

    1. Join the war effort. Buy Fraternal Order of the Police bumper stickers and support our troops!

    2. It is a lot of work, which is why some of the more innovative cops bypass all that tedious stuff and just roll in shooting to any 911 call. Not only do you solve forever whatever problem the victim has, you also get paid vacation.

  11. ‘HE VIRTUALLY RUBBED MY CROTCH’ Woman ‘sexually assaulted’ in virtual reality by pervert cyber-groper

    She wrote: “In between a wave of zombies and demons to shoot down, I was hanging out next to BigBro442, waiting for our next attack.

    “Suddenly, BigBro442’s disembodied helmet faced me dead-on. His floating hand approached my body, and he started to virtually rub my chest.”
    The woman’s first foray into virtual reality started off well as the experience “won me over, lock, stock and barrel”.

    “Turning around 360 degrees, I revelled in the snowy medieval fortress of a game called QuiVr, where you play an archer shooting down the walking dead,” she wrote.

    “Never had I experienced virtual reality that felt so real. I was smitten. I never wanted to leave this world.”

    But after just three minutes in the virtual world, BigBro442 ruined everything.

    The woman cried “stop” over her microphone, but this failed to deter the hi-tech heavy breather.
    “There I was, being virtually groped in a snowy fortress with my brother-in-law and husband watching.”

    We have reached peak derp.

    Can’t link to article

    1. Can’t link to article

      Can’t or won’t?

        1. Yarp!

          A month ago today. 🙂

          1. Congratulations on the 1 month anniversary!

            1. Thank you! We accidentally celebrated last night with some of the same wine we had that day.

              1. That’s fun. The page doesn’t load all the way. Is the pumpkin bog wine pumpkin flavored?

                1. I’m not sure! I mean to try the pumpkin bog and the honey mead… one day. But it’s a long drive out there.

    2. Virtual Groping = bad
      Virtual murder = good

      1. according to the modern puritans, that is exactly what they believe.

    3. Was the article from ‘Rolling stone’ ?

  12. Thomas Sowell: Border hawks are not “against” immigration in generally, just against certain specifics.

    This changing trend was accompanied by a sharply increased use of the government’s “social assistance” program, from 6 percent in the pre-1976 era to 41 percent in the 1996?1999 period. But, even in this later period, fewer than 7 percent of the immigrants from Scandinavia and Western Europe used “social assistance,” while 44 percent of the immigrants from the Middle East used that welfare-state benefit.

    Immigrants, who were by this time 16 percent of Sweden’s population, had become 51 percent of the long-term unemployed and 57 percent of the people receiving welfare payments. The proportion of foreigners in prison was five times their proportion in the population of the country.

    The point of all this is that there is no such thing as immigrants in general, whether in Europe or America. Yet all too many of the intelligentsia in the media and in academia talk as if immigrants were abstract people in an abstract world, to whom we could apply abstract principles ? such as “we are all descendants of immigrants.”

    1. Your Temple article is rage inducing. Why do college students need the right to bear arms? I can’t think of a single reason.

      1. If one of those students had been armed, someone might have gotten hurt. This way everyone goes home unharmed alive.

    2. Why is it that when you ask a conservative about immigration, they always respond by talking about welfare?

      1. Because, unlike some among the Trumpkins, conservatives are not in the main anti-immigrant or America Firsters. The left loves painting border hawks as being xenophobes, helped in no small part by some actually being xenophobes, but there are very real objections to immigration that have nothing to do with immigrants. I outlined mine down below: we are a nation of immigrants working in tandem to perpetuate prosperity. The European model for immigration has serious flaws, and we should not emulate it.

        That said, a lot of noise about Mexican immigration is stupid and wrongheaded. I work with Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, citizens and noncitizens alike, and that’s the point: work. One guy is a cop in a small city south of the border. He comes up here on sabbatical for a few months a year, stays with his brother, and works construction. This is not a problem. Experiments in social engineering like relocating tens of thousands of refugees with no plan to integrate them into the economy other than unlimited subsidy into perpetuity is a problem.

        1. with no plan to integrate them into the economy

          Not that I would trust such a plan nor expect it to work, of course.

        2. I mention social engineering below. And I agree with what you are saying about it here as well. It goes both ways. I don’t think it’s good to say “we don’t want immigrants because they change the culture, etc.”, but I also don’t think that we need to be deliberately bringing in particular groups of people on purpose either.
          Let people do what they are going to do, but make them bear the consequences of their actions. That’s really the only hope.

          1. Bingo. Immigration should be a risky proposition. It invites the motivated types. That’s what made it successful.

    3. This is something I’ve wanted to articulate for a while now: freedom of travel is a good and defensible thing in and of itself, but immigration and open borders are not intrinsically good things. What made immigration successful, even waves of culturally distinct immigrants, was their capacity to integrate economically whether or not they embraced the local cultural mores. The lefty vision of immigration, assuming for a moment it’s not inspired by hatred for the west or cynically motivated by a desire to change voter demographics, is animistic: simply the presence of immigrants, whoever they are and whatever they do here, empowers the nation like a good luck charm.

      1. If only there were people who thought about it in terms of freedom and good for the immigrants themselves rather than in terms of fairy tales like cultures or nations.

        1. Pfft, unless they think exactly like I do they’re not libertarians.


          1. In fact, they are communists.

          2. That’s why my comments are always at least two lines long, so you can read whatever you like between them.

        2. Well, just remember, better than Venezuela is not necessarily the same thing as “as good as America”. I don’t think being born in America lets me deserve the lifestyle I have at the expense of some poor bastard whose kids are dying of tetanus or dysentery or some other easily treatable disease. But when we talk about how should the money that gets stolen from us at gunpoint be spent, its fair to say, “not on that guy and his family”. If we smear the Gross Global Product around (presumably what would happen in the free migration scenario), its very possible that the US gets a lot more crowded and a lot more poor*. Of course, you’d also have little incentive for staying there if you liked living on an island in the Pacific better.

          *Even if we double the “GGP” due to positive economic effects and then spread it, this is still true for just about everyone who works full-time at something in the US.

          1. You have a say in how tax money gets spent? You have a lot to answer for sir.

            1. I get to talk about how it should be spent, which is not the same as having a say. Much like I get to talk about how my favorite football team should run their offense, but do not have a say in cutting Brock Osweiller, the offensive coordinator and the head coach and just writing off the $50M in collective guarantee money as a loss worth taking.

      2. If you believe that all immigration is always all good, then you are a bit silly.

        But for me it comes down to a strong distaste for social engineering and a focus on the rights of the individual, which is why I favor immigration being as open as practically possible.

        1. distaste for social engineering

          This is key. If it is labor flowing according to market demands, great. If it’s loading boats full of people and dumping them in refugee camps, not so great.

          1. Yeah, no social engineering one way or the other. Just let people be free.

        2. I’m sympathetic to this. The problem is that practicality has been defined down to include all manner of dumb guarantees subsidized by the public dole.

          1. Reasonable arguments can be had over what is practical in the current context.

            I tend to stick close to principle, mostly because of extreme cynicism.

    4. Yet all too many of the intelligentsia in the media and in academia talk as if immigrants were abstract people in an abstract world, to whom we could apply abstract principles ? such as “we are all descendants of immigrants.”

      Or the “presumption of freedom,” I guess.

        1. Rule of law only works when the laws mostly align with what most people are inclined to do anyway. I think immigration is a nice illustration of this. If you try to restrict immigration over the southern border too much, people will immigrate illegally and people will happily give those people jobs. If you want immigration laws to “work” (particularly when you have long and difficult to fortify land or sea borders), you either need to have the law align with natural migration patterns, or you need an authoritarian police state.

  13. Tooch, I loved your book, but I wish it didn’t do so well. I miss your writing here at reason. They don’t pay well, and the commentariat is a bunch of unreconciled assholes (which is why I fit so well), but please write more regular columns.

    1. I’m writing a weekly column for Reason.com and will soon have a column every other issue in the print magazine. Thanks for your kind words, by the way!

  14. So, I voted for Gary Johnson this morning and the 2 libertarians down the ticket. I skipped over the contests without a libertarian candidate. May I have a cookie now?

    1. You may have one marijuana edible.

    2. After some consideration…no.

    3. *charges Capt. Rimmer the maximum price the cookie market will bear*

      1. *pours some fizzy lifting drank out for Gene*

  15. The only real solution here is to totally end the war on drugs. What they will do after cannabis is legal in every state is to use this to double down on the drug war. They’ll say things like ‘we already have 2 legal substances people can legally abuse, cannabis and alcohol! We don’t need even one more!’. And they’ll replace cannabis with other banned substances so that arrests and incarcerations go up instead of down. The only way out is complete legalization of all drugs. We’ll never see that under the current 2 party system.

    1. The sad part is, most people who favor cannabis legalization will go right along with cracking down on all those other bad drugs. There’s an opioid epidemic, doncha know?

      1. Yes, I know. Sigh…

      2. And soon to be a kratom epidemic, I suspect.

        1. Seems like the DEA has backed off on that for the time being. Which is actually kind of remarkable.

    2. How about nicotine? That’s very bad so the gubmit should make it illegal – for your own good.

      About 1 In 5 Americans Say Smoking Should Be Illegal


  16. Of course both Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine support the racist and un Constitutional war on drugs.

  17. Clinton: Legalization not the answer to the drug war


    Jay Z thinks ‘The war on drugs is an epic fail’


    1. Jay Z to headline concert for Hillary Clinton


      Has Jay Z ever given it a thought that Hillary Clinton supports that which he says is an ‘epic failure?’

  18. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  19. I Quit my office-job and now I am getting paid 99 USD hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely!

    Check it out what i do:===> http://www.works76.COM

  20. I’m using it now and it’s awesome! I’ve signed up for my account and have been bringing in fat paychecks. For real, my first week I made $1305 and the second week I doubled it and theen it kind a snowballed to $120 a day! juet follow the course…… they will help you out………..

    visit More This Site———->>> http://www.jobnet70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.