Iain Murray, in drug-warrior mode, is upset at Reason magazine for saying that a family whose house was torched by a drug dealer whom they'd been trying to get out of the neighborhood were more casualties of the drug war. He compares the drug dealer to the sniper, and accuses Reason of a double standard because in the case of the former, they say that the sniper is solely responsible, whereas in the case of the latter, they pin part of the blame on drug policy.

I don't see the double standard, because the two cases are different. There's no discernable policy that caused the sniper to snipe (at least not based on evidence seen to date), but clearly, if drugs were legal, it's unlikely that that particular person would even be a dealer, since he'd probably be off engaged in some more lucrative (illegal) activity. The dealer has a reason for his action (though not an excuse or justification) that stems from the brutal incentives put in place by drug laws. At least it can be said of him that there is a rational (albeit evil) purpose to his targeting those individuals. The sniper is killing people randomly. There is a difference.

But in the comments section, some related issues came up. Iain claims that there's no problem with outlawing drugs, because "society wants it." I disagreed, stating that I thought that most or all federal drug laws are unconstitutional under (among other things), the Tenth Amendment.

The reason that we have the Bill of Rights is to protect us from things that society may "want," like rounding up people of a certain ethnicity and interning them, or silencing a group of people with a certain point of view. The "interest of society" is not sufficient to deprive people of their rights, and while I have no desire to do so, I have trouble seeing how I don't have an intrinsic right to burn vegetation and suck it into my lungs. They're my lungs. If I go out and commit some actual crime as a result, then justice should be served, but the simple act of ingesting a substance is not, or at least, should not be, a crime.

One of the problems with federalizing this (and indeed, in federalizing many crimes, as currently seems to be the trend, unless we can get a Supreme Court that will roll back this overreach) is that there's no way to do any social experiments.

The drug warriors take it as a given that drug laws minimize drug use and harm, purely on a theoretical basis, since there's little empirical evidence to support it. There is an assumption behind them that drug laws suppress drug use, and that absent them, many more would take drugs. They may be right, but it's difficult to know, because we dont have any labs in which to test the proposition in any kind of controlled way.

One of the beauties of the original concept of federalism was that the states would serve as such social laboratories, and could try different policies in accordance to their culture and the will of their own people. It probably is constitutional for a state to regulate (and even outlaw) drugs--the liquor and tobacco example provides plenty of precedent.

But because Washington has taken away the prerogative, we have no opportunity to do such experiments, and see what really is the best solution to this pressing social problem. Regardless of their opinions on the effectiveness and justice of drug prohibition, self-identified conservatives should be concerned by the fact that, as in many other policies, we have an overbearing government in Washington that has decided that one size fits all.

Liberals should be concerned about an overbearing government in Washington too, but they aren't either. Overbearing government has been accepted by almost all the American people in exchange for "security." I rue the day when they find they regret the deal they have made.

Another difference between the sniper and arson attacks is that we know the causes of both but the influences of only the latter. Nobody knows the sniper's excuse, but the arsonist's excuse is clear: preservation of market share.

One of the central issues of drug policy is what alternative - criminalization, decriminalization with government regulations, laissez faire decriminalization with private-sector anti-drug "missionary" activity, etc. - will most effectively reduce drug abuse. Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines...

I agree with Rand's argument. A similar appeal to federalism has been made WRT abortion -- i.e., if not for Roe v. Wade each state could have restricted (or not) abortion per local mores. It's a strong argument for not federalizing abortion laws, and it's interesting that the obvious parallels between abortion and drug laws are not more frequently noted.

What strikes me about this post, and all of the comments so far, is the almost complete indifference to the deaths. It reminds me more than a little bit of the way some opponents of American foregin policy have excused the deaths on 9/11. I don't think that's what you intend. Please express a little sadness for the deaths and a little contempt for their murderer. This mother and her children did not in any way deserve to be murdered, whether you agree with current drug policies or not. Have you even looked at their names?

Of course I'm not indifferent to their deaths, and of course they didn't deserve to be murdered. And of course the drug dealer who did this should be subjected to the harshest punishment allowable by law--he is scum.

But I'm not sure why I need to make that disclaimer to make my point.

I think by debating this issue does honor these deaths by debating the issues that surround the ordeal. This is how a person's presence on this planet is capable of reaching out and touching all of us and affecting how we express our opinions on a given subject. For some our condolences are expressed through deliberate mourning but for others this takes place with contemplation of the means and ways of society at large. To not honor these people would be to ignore the situation completely as if nothing happened.

Jim Miller wrote:
>>What strikes me about this post, and all of the comments so far, is the almost complete indifference to the deaths. It reminds me more than a little bit of the way some opponents of American foregin policy have excused the deaths on 9/11. I don't think that's what you intend. Please express a little sadness for the deaths and a little contempt for their murderer.

Jim, why do you think I am indifferent? How would you know? Should I preface my every brief political point with a ritual disclaimer about how bad I feel for victims? I'm sure that you meant well, but this is a rather harsh accusation that you make. Please consider that we made our points in the context of a discussion about which government policies minimize social harm. It's not an accident that dispassionate reason is widely considered useful when discussing emotionally troubling subjects.

"One of the central issues of drug policy is what alternative - criminalization, decriminalization with government regulations, laissez faire decriminalization with private-sector anti-drug "missionary" activity, etc. - will most effectively reduce drug abuse. "

Who cares which alternative will most effectively reduce drug abuse? The bottom line is that granting outlaws a lucrative protected market in recreational pharmaceuticals gives them incentives and tools for killing people. Drug abusers endanger their own health by their own choice. The victims of the gangsters had no choice. I don't see how it could ever be appropriate for us to accept increases in the latter even if it led to decreases in the former.

Not that I believe that legalization would cause drug abuse to skyrocket, any more than the repeal of the First Prohibition did. But even if I were wrong on that point, it still isn't a good reason to keep the Second Prohibition going.