Drugs

One other thing is certain...drugs are an issue that needs to be reexamined closely. There are more people in prison for non-violent drug "crimes" than for any other category of crime. This is creating a massive population of people who have not violated anyone else's rights. Human Rights Watch reports:

According to the latest statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice, more than two million men and women are now behind bars in the United States. The country that holds itself out as the "land of freedom" incarcerates a higher percentage of its people than any other country. The human costs — wasted lives, wrecked families, troubled children — are incalculable, as are the adverse social, economic and political consequences of weakened communities, diminished opportunities for economic mobility, and extensive disenfranchisement.

Contrary to popular perception, violent crime is not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States since 1980. In fact, violent crime rates have been relatively constant or declining over the past two decades. The exploding prison population has been propelled by public policy changes that have increased the use of prison sentences as well as the length of time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release.

Although these policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, they have instead yielded high rates of confinement of nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates are held for violent offenses.

Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges.

Even more troubling than the absolute number of persons in jail or prison is the extent to which those men and women are African-American. Although blacks account for only 12 percent of the U.S. population, 44 percent of all prisoners in the United States are black.

Census data for 2000,which included a count of the number and race of all individuals incarcerated in the United States, reveals the dramatic racial disproportion of the incarcerated population in each state: the proportion of blacks in prison populations exceeds the proportion among state residents in every single state. In twenty states, the percent of blacks incarcerated is at least five times greater than their share of resident population.

These are sobering statistics, every pun intended.

Who initiates force where the drug issue is concerned? As it turns out, initiated force is rampant. Yet the judicial system's focus is more often on the wrong people, people who didn't actually initiate force against anyone.

Clearly the government initiates the use of force. They force people to stop using drugs regardless of whether those people have used force against anyone else.

Drug producers in Colombia and other countries often initiate force in order to defend their territories. Of course, if drug production was legal in those countries, this would be far less likely to happen.

Some people say that drug pushers initiate force. Others say they don't. To the extent that they do, it is right to say that they're committing a crime. But when they're engaging in voluntary trade, there is no initiated force.

If a drug dealer offers a free sample to someone, and that someone accepts it and wants more later, is that fact the drug dealer's responsibility? Some people would say yes, it is. So why don't they say the same thing about alcohol pushers...or as we usually describe them: bartenders and package store owners? How about tobacco pushers? 

Hey buddy...want a smoke and another one of what you're drinking? 

Most likely, the same attitude is not held about bartenders, package store owners, and tobacco dealers because they don't work in illegal industries. Thus, they have no need to pressure anyone. We could reasonably expect the same tendency to occur if selling marijuana was also legal.

If a parent takes drugs to the point that it interferes with their ability to raise their children, most people would say they are in the wrong. Most people would also say that they're in the wrong if they allow alcohol or tobacco to interfere. Yet the government cracks down far harder on parents who use marijuana than they do on parents who use alcohol or tobacco.

If someone under the influence of a drug commits a crime such as robbery or murder, they clearly have initiated force. Also as clearly, there are laws in place regarding murder and robbery that make drug laws unnecessary where these sorts of crimes are concerned.

The law is completely inconsistent about drugs when we include tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol in the discussion (as we should). The main reason this is so is emotion. People have allowed their emotions to dominate their reasoning when it comes to drugs, and this has severely colored the drug laws.

Can you think of other kinds of individuals who initiate the use of force against others where drugs are concerned? Since we support the Non-Aggression Principle, what do you believe our position on drugs should be? Contact us and let us know what you've come up with.