Recently a prosecutor in Vermont, Windsor County State's Attorney Robert Sand told the Rutland Herald that he favored decriminalization of all drugs, "State's attorney critical of drug laws."
Today, the Rutland Herald followed up asking the state police Commissioner his view, and a retired federal probation officer, "State splits over decriminalizing drugs."
Today the newspaper editorialized, "Just say so to legalization".
I posted the following on the comment board:
"What justifies punishing a drug user?"
The Rutland Herald’s editorial this morning is a thoughtful beginning to think about one of the most important social policy questions our society faces. The use of drugs unquestionably leads to many tragedies – but that is true of much of life.
Just think of how many persons are killed and injured skiing and snow boarding each year nationwide – an average of more than 38 persons per year, according to National Ski Areas Association. One could ask, what does skiing accomplish? What good is skiing? Well, it is fun, it is exciting. Isn’t it exciting because the speed creates a sense of risk? If we focused our attention just on hospital emergency rooms, we might think that skiing ought to be outlawed.
It might be an interesting exercise to imagine what the world of skiing would look like if it were outlawed. Imagine who would make skis, how it would be taught, where it would be done. Does anyone doubt that while there would be much less skiing, it would be much more dangerous to those who do ski, than it is now?
Do any of your readers know people who do not ski because they fear that it is dangerous? How would Vermonters feel if a crusade were started to protect society from the dangers of skiing by outlawing skiing? We would consider such a crusade absurd.
Most of society would argue that there is simply no valid comparison between skiing and heroin use. And in many respects, of course, they are very different activities. Most of us cannot imagine that our vision of the typical heroin user is getting any pleasure that is legitimate – we see the heroin user as desperately ill and hunting for their next “fix.” What is the Constitutional or moral principal that entitles a political majority to define another person’s pleasures as wrong, or illegal?
Before we think about legalization and the complex regulations that it might involve, we must ask a preliminary question. What is the principle that authorizes the state punishment of a person for the simple act of using a drug like heroin, cocaine, or marijuana? What are our principles for deciding who the state gets to deny liberty by locking them up and punishment? Before society is justified in punishing a person, isn’t it necessary to ask exactly what harm to another that person is actually doing?
We punish rapists because they hurt a victim. Our society says you cannot force a person to have sex if they do not want to. We say you cannot fondle someone for your own emotional gratification. You cannot lock up a child in the basement and deny the child liberty – even if you feed the child and give the child books. We understand that taking away someone’s rights and property are wrong, and deserve punishment.
The person sitting in their house who injects, smokes or snorts a drug is not taking away anyone else’s property or invading anyone else’s rights. What is the principle that says the state may punish them? The question I am asking is, what is the moral basis for punishing drug use?
Some people like to answer that because drug use will lead (but only sometimes) to addiction or other physical injury, that consequence will result in public expenditures. But this consequence does not justify punishing people in advance. We may be able to predict that a lifestyle that involves a poor diet and no exercise will lead to health consequences likely to result in medical bills that must be paid by insurance or by the public. No one would ever claim that such potential public costs justify punishing a person today.
Some people say that punishing people who use drugs will deter other people, especially young people, from using drugs. This mixes up the proper subject of punishment. We may punish a shoplifter who has taken the property of another – which we all agree is wrong – to deter other people from doing that kind of wrongful thing. But we would not and do not punish people who simply browse the aisles of a store because we think that they might shoplift. Unless someone has actually done something wrong, it is wrong to punish them. This kind of deterrence is a type of collective punishment – that is punishment of members of a group to prevent others from taking action. Think about this kind of deterrence at its most extreme. During World War II many people resisted the German invasion of their country. They set roadside bombs for German convoys or blew up trains. The Germans tried to prevent this by inflicting punishment on all the village residents near such acts of resistance. That kind of collective punishment was declared a crime against humanity.
We have imprisoned tens of thousands of people simply for possessing marijuana. They have done nothing else. Is this imprisonment morally justified? This question cannot be answered by saying, “it is against the law,” because we are examining the moral basis for the law.
Before we get to the question of legalization – that is, what a post-prohibition regime might look like, and how it might affect society – we must first answer the moral question of what justifies the state’s punishment of people who have not done anything other than possessed and used a drug.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
A Debate on Drug Legalization in Vermont
Monday, October 23, 2006
Law Enforcement Corruption along the border with Mexico
The Los Angeles Times reports in-depth that corruption of Federal, state and local law enforcement officials along the U.S.-Mexico border is growing.
This corruption is most acute in regard to expediting and protecting the shipment of cocaine, marijuana, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs from Mexico into the United States.
A parallel story tells specifically about Cameron County, Texas Sheriff Conrado Cantu who started selling favors and protection almost as soon as he was elected four years ago.
The most dramatic crime created by drug prohibition is the widespread violence which is part of the managment of conflict in the business -- there is no legal dispute resolution mechanism
Corruption is the most insidious crime created by drug prohibition because is hidden and limitless. Once a law enforcement officer is corrupted, the criminal capability of the criminals who purchased a cop's loyality is unlimited. The fear of exposure and being cut off from the addiction to bribe money is usually so great that the cop will do anything that he is asked to do. The criminals have a very wide range of threats available. Many corrupt cops might give up the illegal stream of money that have started taking if that were the only consequence of abandoning their criminal allies. But a corrupt cop is not a resource a criminal organization is willing to lose. Both the cops and criminals know that the cop can be exposed and destroyed. Once fired or prosecuted a cop that has turned on his former cartel masters faces death in prison, or innocent family members can be threatened with murder.
Like the worst drug addictions, the temptation of drug corruption looks attractive. Enormous sums of cash, jewelry, real estate, vacations, expensive cars are easy to get. But the down side begins with the constant risk of exposure, shame, imprisonment and family estrangement and ends with murder and torture of family members.
For honest citizens, the corrupt cops at the border can be pressured to let anything in, even if the contraband is more dangerous than drugs, e.g. weapons of mass destruction.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Significance of Colorado and Nevada marijuana initiatives -- even if they lose
A poll published in today's Rocky Mountain News in Denver finds for the statewide initiative:
Legalizing marijuana
The poll results for Amendment 44 to legalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana for persons 21 or older showed it failing 53 percent to 42 percent.
Assume that this is the vote on election day. This would demonstrate that there is no moral consensus in Colorado to support the prosecution of marijuana users.
If the question were to spend $100 million of public funds to build a school or a prison, the principle of majority rule is perfectly appropriate.
But when the question is, "Should we take away the liberty of people who possess less than one ounce of marijuana?" the answer comes out differently.
Almost 100 percent of the public agrees that the following acts should be crimes meriting punishment: murder, assault, theft, rape, child abuse, etc. There is a moral consensus.
The tiny fraction of the public who violate those laws --who harm others, who violate the rights of others -- cannot claim the law is unjust. They may raise exceptions such as a right to self-defense that exculpates them from the accusation. But they are not challenging the society's moral consensus.
When forty percent or more of a society declares, this conduct is not morally reprehensible, it does not merit punishment, the majority is not morally free to continue to punish that conduct.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Congress on the Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006
As one listens to the debate in the floor of the House of Representatives, you can imagine that soon Congress will consider legislation to station FBI and ATF agents in our schools to stop the threat of guns and drugs.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Bill to require searches of students by teachers on House floor
The National PTA has joined the School Boards association, the School Administrators association, and Students for Sensible Drug Policy in opposing H.R. 5295, the "Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006."
This bill is the brainchild of Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) who is facing a stiff re-election battle. He convinced the House leadership to schedule to a vote on the House floor September 19. The bill has all of 11 co-sponsors in the 435 member House.
The bill has never been subjected to any hearings nor considered by the Committee to which it was referred, the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Even though it purports to interpret the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment regarding searches, it was not referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The guts of the bill is the following:
SEC. 3. SEARCHES ON COLORABLE SUSPICION.
- (a) In General- Each State, local educational agency, and school district shall have in effect throughout the jurisdiction of the State, agency, or district, as the case may be, policies that ensure that a search described in subsection (b) is deemed reasonable and permissible.
(b) Searches Covered- A search referred to in subsection (a) is a search by a full-time teacher or school official, acting on any colorable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment, of any minor student on the grounds of any public school, if the search is conducted to ensure that classrooms, school buildings, and school property remain free of all weapons, dangerous materials, or illegal narcotics.
SEC. 4. ENCOURAGEMENT TO PROTECT STUDENTS AND TEACHERS.
- (a) In General- A State, local educational agency, or school district that fails to comply with section 3 shall not, during the period of noncompliance, receive any Safe Schools and Citizenship Education funds after fiscal year 2008.
In other words, teachers are directed to search students if they have a phoney suspicion. The bill authorizes mass searches even if only a single student might be suspected.
And finally, any state, or school district that does not enact this plainly unconstitutional policy shall lose all their federal Safe Schools funding assistance.
Posts
