Just Say 'No' to New Forms of Prohibition
It doesn't make sense to create laws that restrict activities enjoyed by the general populace to protect a tiny minority that will undoubtedly partake in those activities anyway.
These are weird times (aren't they all?), but I've lived long enough to see a resurgence of atrocious ideas that I thought had been debunked years ago. Apparently, humanity can only learn lessons for a short time before a new generation needs to re-learn them. "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction," Ronald Reagan said. Perhaps he wasn't exaggerating.
For instance, the Cold War was a backdrop to my formative years with the collapse of communism marking a great advance in the freedom and prosperity of vast swaths of humanity. Despite the gulags, oppression and deprivation, many left-wing thinkers now spend their days—with full belies and from the comfort of their suburban homes—raging against the evils of American capitalism. Just check your Twitter feed.
Likewise, right-wing provocateurs have crept out from under their rocks. I can't fathom how anyone can fall prey to fascistic and bigoted philosophies these days. I also can't understand how some self-styled "conservatives" can champion Hungary's authoritarian leader as a model. There's nothing new under the sun, I suppose, but I naively thought such illiberalism had largely gone away.
The revanchist idea that has really left me flummoxed, however, involves Prohibition. Some serious thinkers have surveyed the American landscape and decided that America's key problem is we don't have enough laws regulating personal behavior. They see vice everywhere—and perhaps they're right on that point. Instead of engaging the culture, they turn to the tried-and-failed method of empowering the government.
In a recent Atlantic column criticizing the legalization of online gambling and marijuana, physician Matthew Loftus argues that these moves embrace the idealistic idea that "responsible, independent adults (should) be able to make decisions for themselves about how they spend their money or use their body." He believes we overlook the degree to which "our habits … are just as often inexplicably self-destructive as they are reasonable."
His solution is to pass laws requiring that "gambling should take place in casinos, not on smartphones, and marijuana should be used only under a healthcare provider's supervision." He even offers a nuanced defense of the Eighteenth Amendment's alcohol Prohibition, which he credits with reducing alcohol-related illnesses and domestic violence. We should structure our laws to provide "guardrails to help people from driving off cliffs of vice," he adds.
Debates about virtue and vice have been around since the dawn of humanity. I'm no personal fan of online gambling or any form of gambling, for that matter, nor do I have any particular interest in cannabis. But, as Jacob Sullum noted in a Reason column debunking Loftus' arguments, only 1 percent of the nation's gamblers have severe gambling problems and only 1.7 percent of marijuana users have a substance-related disorder related to weed.
It doesn't make sense—at least not in a relatively free society—to create laws that restrict activities enjoyed (rightly or wrongly) by the general populace to protect a tiny minority that will undoubtedly partake in those activities anyway, albeit in a less-regulated way. When I was a teenager, it was no doubt a bit harder to access marijuana, but it was widely used nonetheless. We've all heard the term "bookies," who facilitate illegal bet-making. We also know about black markets.
The first problem with the New Prohibitionists is they have an almost childish faith in government regulation. Trying to stop vice is like trying to stop water from flowing down a hill. It finds its way somehow. The world's oldest profession remains illegal yet, I'm betting, takes place pretty much everywhere. Those open-air drug markets that one might find near any homeless encampment involve the sale of drugs that are not—nor likely to be—legal.
The second problem is they focus almost entirely on the ill effects of problem gambling and drug use, but ignore the ill effects of using law enforcement approaches to control people's deep-seated and "inexplicably self-destructive" desires. There were some (mostly temporary) health benefits to Prohibition, but the Cato Institute notes that, "alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became 'organized'…and corruption of public officials was rampant."
More recently, the Drug War led to appalling erosions of our civil liberties, as the government gained wide-ranging powers (e.g., civil asset forfeiture) to fight drug cartels—something they promptly used against ordinary citizens. One might argue that personal "vices" are problematic, but no-knock raids and government property thefts seem far more evil.
"Puritans argue against the goodness of creation, finding the source of evil in material things of pleasure (as tobacco, alcohol, art, and so on) rather than in the disordered human will to misuse the good things nature affords us," wrote the great Christian author G.K. Chesterton. Indeed. If they want to make us more virtuous, today's Puritans need to spend less time changing laws and more time changing hearts.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
These arguments would be more sane if the costs associated with certain vices was discussed.
It is also possible to say government should not be involved outside of the crimes around a vice and also discourage that behavior. Instead we have these articles combined with no cash bail narratives even for violent offenses.
Even if you are pro drug legalization, you have to admit crimes would still occur to fund that addiction. That is a cost and an abuse of the rights and properties of others. So mixing drug legalization with no cash bail is just advocating for ignoring those costs as an acceptable part of society, which you will never garner sympathy for from a large portion of society.
“Even if you are pro drug legalization, you have to admit crimes would still occur to fund that addiction.”
Well, yes. On the other hand, the cost of those (now legal drugs) would be a tiny fraction of the cost of obtaining them on the black market. In CA, I saw the price of pot reduced by 75% virtually overnight — and that was still when one needed a “prescription.”
When was the last time somebody robbed a liquor store for the actual booze?
And then, the “social cost” of those laws is enormous. A couple of cops told me ( in my small city in CA), that 90% of the violent crime (which includes burglary) were drug-related — that is, “users” trying to get enough money to feed their habits. The cops might have been exaggerating a bit, but I do believe they had a point.
But the claim you are making here is a baseless assertion of theory. Portland and Denver are actual examples of legalization showing increased crime.
Here is a smattering of results. Pro legalization groups rely on reduction of drugs while ignoring increases to other crimes. A bit of a dishonest argument.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/has-crime-increased-in-states-that-legalized-marijuana-the-answer-is-complicated
From the linked article …
“As Congress considers legalizing marijuana on the national level, some Republicans have raised concerns about the impact such a move would have on the country’s rising crime rate.
“In short, this bill would be an enormous gift to the cartels and gangs, and in the midst of a nationwide violent crime surge,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) said last week at a hearing about Senate cannabis legislation.”
Cotton is an imbecile. Gangs and cartels make the bulk of their money in hard drugs like meth and fentanyl. If you consume cannabis, why on earth would you want to deal with gangs and cartels when you can purchase a better product for a better price in a safer setting.
++
“Portland and Denver are actual examples of legalization showing increased crime.”
I find it very unlikely that lowering the cost of obtaining a product could result in an increase in illegal activities associated with obtaining it. That makes no economic sense. Maybe there are other factors at work.
Tight governmental restrictions and limits on otherwise legally-prescribed opioids have driven people to obtaining such pain relievers on the black market, as a for-instance.
Portland and Denver, for whatever reasons, have always been magnets for the chronic homeless and the crime that they bring. Cheap drugs doesn’t make it better.
Making money online is more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I received $18376 last month. It’s an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office jobs and even a little child can do this and earn money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
on this page….. http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
“Cheap drugs doesn’t make it better.”
Even if true, I don’t see how “cheap drugs” could make it worse.
It attracts that many more homeless and the associated crime.
I am thinking that homeless folks are, generally, attracted to large cities because they offer more opportunities for everything — from pan-handling to government support to, yes, opportunities for crime. It’s really easy to get pot in the boondocks, since that is where most of it is grown. And there is no shortage of meth or any other drugs “out in the boonies.”
So true. Homeless generally don’t stay long in the country. They would rather homestead in cities where the structure is there and better defined to support their life style. They would starve to death in a desert area,
You know what attracts homeless … a free apartment … aka Gavin Newsome’s housing first initiative. 175 years after the gold rush … California now has the bum rush.
Youre assuming a reduction in cost that never materialized. Government taxed it to higher cost. There is a thriving black market still in California as an example.
Likewise addiction leads to increase in demand if the product. So it will always lead to higher costs.
“Youre assuming a reduction in cost that never materialized. Government taxed it to higher cost. There is a thriving black market still in California as an example.”
Absolutely correct. And CA is INCREASING their funding for illegal pot enforcement, which just goes to show…. that CA is a shit-hole? But then, you know that.
Correlation is not causation. Cannabis legalization is not the problem in Denver and Portland. Turning a blind eye to meth and fentanyl is the problem.
“Correlation is not causation.”
Why, how DARE you say such a thing!!!
And you are right, especially about meth.
So are you suggesting that all of a sudden people are resorting to crime to fund their weed habits, at the same time as prices have fallen dramatically? Has nothing else happened in Portland or Denver in the last several years that might also increase crime besides cannabis legalization?
I think it’s more likely that as early legalizers, which were already destinations for druggie bums, those places attracted even more druggie bums.
Long time ago someone broke into my apartment so, being young and stupid, I call the cops under the mistaken belief that they help crime victims. A couple cops arrived at the door, declared that the break-in was drug related, and offered to search my apartment for something they could use to arrest me. When I declined they left.
Saying that crimes are drug related is just an excuse for cops to treat victims like criminals.
“Saying that crimes are drug related is just an excuse for cops to treat victims like criminals.”
Sometimes that is true. But in the case of the town in question, the overall violent crime rate was a fraction of that in the rest of CA. Except for burglaries.
Did the cops investigate the burglaries, or did they threaten to arrest the victims for having the audacity to ask for help?
“Did the cops investigate the burglaries, or did they threaten to arrest the victims for having the audacity to ask for help?”
LOL. Yeah, like the White cops in that White town were going to arrest White middle-class working folks.
What does that have to do with anything?
It was a joke. Sorry.
But no, the cops I worked with didn’t seem to be into the “blaming the victim” or assuming that the victim was somehow to blame (like by selling drugs, for instance.) More than a few of them used to “partake” of pot now and then, themselves.
●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….
See this article for more information————————>>>http://www.dailypro7.com
I was in a white college town, and the cops didn’t give a crap about anyone’s skin color. The students got so fed up with the police that they rioted a year or two after I moved away.
Not to mention that in the long term, legal drugs plausibly means fewer people unemployed because of drug convictions or being fired from work, and hence fewer people unable to use their income to buy drugs.
“Not to mention that in the long term, legal drugs plausibly means fewer people unemployed because of drug convictions or being fired from work, and hence fewer people unable to use their income to buy drugs.”
And fewer people in jail at a cost of a couple of hundred dollars a day to the taxpayer? Sounds like a win-win.
Not to mention fewer people being dead from consuming tainted product, because in a legal industry you can sue the provider.
+++
Not many drive by shootings these days between alcohol gangs. Coors and Anheuser-Busch mostly compete with dumb TV ads. I wonder what changed?
“Not many drive by shootings these days between alcohol gangs. Coors and Anheuser-Busch mostly compete with dumb TV ads. I wonder what changed?”
Yeah, but some folks still miss things like the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.
What it really comes down to for me is that no one should be punished for doing something that harms no one. The vast majority of users of all drugs don’t do anyone any harm. Punishing them because a minority are hardcore junkies willing to do whatever for their fix is simply immoral. I see no moral difference between the state locking someone up for drugs and me abducting a random person off the street and locking them in my basement for no reason.
If crime is a problem, do more to enforce the laws against actual crimes. That seems like the real problem: many cities are unwilling or unable to stop actual crimes with actual victims.
“What it really comes down to for me is that no one should be punished for doing something that harms no one. The vast majority of users of all drugs don’t do anyone any harm.”
+++
It doesn’t make sense to create laws that restrict activities enjoyed by the general populace to protect a tiny minority that will undoubtedly partake in those activities anyway.
Yes, they will, the difference being that, at least currently, we don’t celebrate Addiction Pride Month.
The point isn’t that people won’t be doing these things anyway. Of course they will. But if they’re illegal, they have some incentive for being discreet about it, and not getting in the face of those not interested (we’ll leave the possibility those not interested will end up being forced to subsidize the interested aside for now).
TL;DR – Laws won’t stop people from doing things I object to, but they sure as hell give them an incentive for not doing them in my face. Wave that flag somewhere else.
I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
This is where i started………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
“I also can’t understand how some self-styled “conservatives” can champion Hungary’s authoritarian leader as a model.”
Probably because Orban isn’t actually authoritarian, and journalists are paid big bucks to slag him by his long-time political enemy and fellow Hungarian, George Soros.
If you didn’t make a few extra bucks typing that sentence, Steven, then you’re one of the gullible ones. Because the “authoritarian” accusations are pretty evidence free.
Incidentally, only one of those two was an actual Nazi party member, and it wasn’t Orban.
So Greenhut feels it necessary to start the article with a ritual throat-clearing denunciation of the Right while the actual subject of the article is a feature in The Atlantic, which is under the control of its pearl clutching Woke progressive staff, but Greenhut does not specify what, if any, political position Loftus comes from.
It doesn’t make sense to create laws that restrict activities enjoyed by the general populace to protect a tiny minority that will undoubtedly partake in those activities anyway.
“Rape? Sure, just the tip! Slavery? Just 3/5ths! Child Sacrifices? Just the firstborn sons!” – Steve Greenhut
The funniest part is, per post-Truth/post-Parody America, the distinction between me above being a disingenuous asshat and Steve’s actual stance on abortion, immigration, private censorship, etc., etc. is pretty moot.
What do they call it when you equate two things that aren’t alike? For example equating victimless crimes with rape and murder? Oh yeah. False equivalence.
Yes. There are zero victims of drug crimes. As long as you ignore all the theft, violence, etc.
Ctrl+f ‘victim’: 0 results.
“There is no prohibition on rape and murder in the US.” – sarcasmic
And, per my point: “Murder unborn babies? It should be unlimited but I’ll settle for 50,000+ per year.” – Steve Greenhut
“Online gambling, marijuana and prostitution” – Greenhut
“That’s the same as rape, slavery and murder!” – mad.casual
“False equivalence” – sarcasmic
I also can’t understand how some self-styled “conservatives” can champion Hungary’s authoritarian leader as a model.
I would have thought it’s obvious. Authoritarianism in the psychologixcal sense and bigotry run deeper than political ideology.
Please explain in more precise terms Hungary authoritarian model and how it applies to conservatives shrike. Difficulty, don’t simply site a leftist source making the same bald assertion.
Ukraine is actively doing worse such as disallowing political opponents from running. Often what idiots cite is Hungary only allowing state run media. But it is a false assertion as the number of independent media in Hungary has grown under Obama.
So be explicit. We know you can’t. But try.
I’m not shrike. Fuck off, you cracker POS.
The Hungarian authoritarian model involves anti-gay bigotry, nationalism, greater involvement of religion. You only have to read Rod Dreher on Orban – he’s a fan – to see this laid out.
Meanwhile
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hungarian-prime-minister-orban-to-appear-at-2022-cpac/
The now fourth-term prime minister spoke at CPAC’s May conference in Budapest, where he outlined Hungary’s “12-point recipe” for success, including implementing national conservatism in domestic policy by supporting families and churches
The fourth point emphasized conjoining the media with the government, citing the justification that it would expose “the insanity of the progressive Left if we have the media to help us.”
“I am familiar with the old ethos of Western democracy that party politics and the press should be separate. That is how it should be. But, my friends, the Democrats in America, for example, do not abide by these rules. Have you ever tried to count how many media [outlets] serve the Democratic Party? CNN, the New York Times, and I could go on and on. I would not get to the end even by the evening,” Orbán said.
Since his first election, Orbán has been known for centralizing political structures and resisting globalization.
In 2014, he promised to usher in “illiberal democracy” presumably to advance the cause of Hungarian nationalism.
Ukraine is actively doing worse such as disallowing political opponents from running.
Instead, Orban changed the rules – as he can do unilaterally, to make ti easier for him to win. And this is “whataboutism”. I note that Ukraine is at war and Hungary isn’t.
And see this:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/viktor-orban-fidesz-party-harmed-hungary/
Not even you can claim that National Review is lefty.
the number of independent media in Hungary has grown under Obama.
That’s an amusing Freudian slip. Have you evidence that these media are independent – that is, free of government control – only voluntarily pro-Orban, and have significant market penetration? Easy enough to tolerate a large number of micro-presses once you’ve suppressed a few major opposition outlets.
Okay shrike. I see your complaint. Any pro family or pro religion discussion is authoritarian. Instead you seek to ban those discussions from public life. Did I get that right?
Nationalism is not authoritarian. They can both be utilized independently. Failure 1.
Anti gay.. Hungary has some work there but where is it being done in the US where every fucking business celebrates it? You mean dont teach kids k-3 about sex? Failure 2.
Religion is only disallowed to be established. Just because a politician pushes a bill to help families doesn’t mean it is religious in nature. Cite the US law formed by religious doctrine. Religious constituents have different morals, so they will vote for the laws they agree with. Just like every other political group in the US. But you are apparently an anti religious bigot and want them removed from the political realm. Failure 3.
Do you wish to try again shrike?
I like how NROs biggest gripe is being pro family. Not the best cite for a defense there.
H. L. Mencken (or someone else) had it right.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/06/25/puritanism/#:~:text=Puritanism%3A%20the%20haunting%20fear%20that%20someone%2C%20somewhere%2C%20may,caustic%20items%20on%20the%20theme%20of%20religion%3A%20
If you believe in liberty the only actions which should be illegal are those involving the initiatory use of force.
+++
Just dropping to make sure that the comments were still dominated by culture war conservatives. Everything looks normal here as the non-libertarian element complains that Reason isn’t libertarian enough. A bunch of people with seemingly nothing to do but write on internet stories and endlessly attack. Trolls are morons, but then again so are all cultural conservatives so I repeat myself.
Generally agree but please fix funny typo.
“with full belies and from the comfort of their suburban homes”
Belies is bellies, belike.
😉
I thought he misspelled Belial.
>>childish faith in government regulation
terrifying to have watched the bodies being snatched.
Yup. Prohibitionists claim the increased crime and corruption and privacy intrusions and tainted and more dangerous product are the price we pay to stop the alcohol/drugs/whatever they want prohibited. But neglect to mention that the item being prohibited is still being consumed anyway.
+++
The only thing that would matter to looters is that prohibition laws crash the economy.
Ignorance is a renewable resource.
Maybe when the founders started the USA they should’ve put LIMITS on government..
Oh wait; they did! Yet treasonous “democracy” fanboy-ism abolished that didn’t they. Just ‘pretend’ a whole other nation into existence.
I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
This is where i started………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Alcohol was deliberately poisoned and renamed industrial as of 1907. Cops organized dope and liquor smuggling, but the other 19/20ths came from glucose corn sugar and yeast through continuous stills. Finally, after the Willebrandt jurisprudence making cops snitch each other, dry agents were hunted and killed like mad dogs and the government covered up these steeply increasing vigilante killings after 1930. Unequal yet apposite reprisal force is resorted to once coercion becomes violent and persistent enough.
“I also can’t understand how some self-styled ‘conservatives’ can champion Hungary’s authoritarian leader as a model.”
Because those people aren’t conservatives (read: “classical liberal”) in any real sense. They’re what I call “strong-man socialists,” still looking to the state to solve their problems. I suspect they all have daddy issues.
Please update your thoughts to the current. Prohibitions on gambling have been around far longer than the author has been alive. I DEFY you to find anyone arguing to ban gambling apps that doesn’t argue to ban gambling in general.
This article is true, but it misses the point in that it almost solely blames the right for these stupid ideas. Gun control is just as dumb as prohibition laws are. Whether its a Democrat trying to ban guns or a Republican trying to ban alcohol…they are both backwards morons who think more laws equals better outcomes. Usually its the opposite of that.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do…..
For more detail visit the given link……….>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com