I’m probably going to regret writing this post. But, then, if I’d never done anything I thought I might regret later then I’d probably also never have done anything worthwhile.
Quite a few people are commenting on Mexico’s prospective abolition of laws against possession of at least some drugs for personal use. James Joyner of Outside the Beltway writes:
This strikes me as a smart compromise solution. While it won’t satisfy libertarians who think drugs should be a purely private concern or conservatives who think the state should enforce moral standards, this allows resources to be focused in a more rational manner.
I’m not either of those things and, frankly, this troubles me. More on why later.
Dean Esmay has commented, too, with guarded optimism. Joe Gandelman comes a little closer to my view:
It’s too early to tell but another question will be: is this a wise tactical adjustment — or Mexico starting to inch up a white flag in its battle against the drug cartels?
I have no opinion whatever on what will or will not help Mexico in dealing with the problem of drugs. However, it seems obvious to me that, at the margin, this will inevitably result in more users of recreational drugs and more abusers of recreational drugs. And that will, in turn, result in more misery.
Now, a little self-disclosure. I don’t smoke or use drugs. I barely take aspirin. I drink a glass of wine or beer every once in a while. I like good bourbon and good scotch and good brandy. I’ll drink a little every once in a great while. I avoid more than a tiny bit because I feel so awful afterwards. I don’t like taking prescribed drugs because, generally speaking, they make me feel lousy.
Alcoholism practically gallops in my family. Both of my paternal grandparents were alcoholics and both, arguably, died of complications of alcoholism. An image that’s seared in my mind is the account of my mild, gentle father going to his mother’s home after her death and quietly emptying and breaking every single bottle.
My mother’s maternal grandfather was an alcoholic all his life. He abandoned the family, they were divorced (a great scandal and shame in the late 19th-early 20th century), and the family was left in incredible poverty. There were no safety nets in those days. He spent the last decades of his life in a poor house.
So here’s my balance sheet. My maternal grandmother’s family was impoverished by alcoholism. That, in turn, affected my mother’s life and, consequently, mine. Alcohol deprived me of grandparents—I never knew any of my grandparents. Without doubt that has had influences I can’t even guess at on my life. And my dad experienced enormous grief at his mother’s alcoholism. And, well, I loved my dad and despise anything that would hurt him.
One of my best high school friends died of a heroin overdose while in college.
I won’t go into the details of how alcohol has affected my own generation of my family.
Human beings are social animals. We exist within a social milieu. We are not solitary hunters like cats. We have friends and co-workers and families and what happens to them touches and influences our lives.
So, if anyone tells you that alcoholism or drug abuse is victimless, know that they’re either fools, or mistaken, or liars. Although neither I nor my wife nor my parents nor her parents are alcholics, I’m a victim of alcoholism. It has victims. Unto the 10th generation.
My heart goes out to children and families who will be victims in Mexico. Drugs are misery. Maybe, as James says, the change will allow the resources of the Mexican government to be focused more effectively. My bet is that more Mexican government officials will grow wealthy putting drug money into their pockets.
Do I believe in prohibition of alcohol and recreational drugs? I believe in fighting alcohol abuse and drug abuse. What form that fight should take I really don’t know.
I paste a copy of a comment I left at Dean’s World. As someone who actually lives in Mexico and knows the situation with a little more knowledge than the bloviators on the blogs, you might want to pay some heed to what is the reality of this newest ley.
The effect of the decriminalization law, as the news account makes clear, is *only* to eliminate the bribery (mordida) associated with possession arrests.
Under the previous law, small amounts of drugs were never prosecuted but basically dealt with like traffic tickets … on the spot and in cash.
Now that will change and the policia can go after the “bigger bites”, and only the upper echelons will get to eat.
I predict the net effect will be an increase in traffic tickets that are never written.
Dave,
My problem is with the enforcement rather than the ban. Were we able to wave a magic wand and ban the use of these substances, it would likely be worth the diminution of freedom that comes with it.
No such wand exists. The result is the diversion of substantial law enforcement resources in arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating marginal users and even addicts. This wastes money and ruins lives.
I’d much rather see our efforts go into educating people about the effects of addiction and treating those who go astray with open arms through the medical vice criminal justice system. Even in terms of drug enforcement, we’d be much better off focusing our energies on the pushers who try to get children hooked than adult users.
Central to the drug problem is that some people are fey. They don’t really believe they can have the sort of success that’s worth having, so they settle for whatever scraps of feeling OK they can get. Likely one drug or another. Or video games. Or romance novels. Whatever escape is available. They don’t face their lives until they get some hope.
Going after the individual drugs will redirect them to other drugs. It doesn’t really control the consumers, it just keeps the jails full. Is it worth all that much to get people to drink instead of smoke marijuana? Do steroids instead of heroin? There’s *some* value to it, but what it costs?
Once people are convinced that they’re losers — for whatever reason — why not let them have a little comfort while they wait to die? Well, they might get in other people’s way. I say, we need tests for reflexes and judgement, and people in responsible positions need to pass them before they do things that need reflexes or judgement. Never mind about breathalyzer tests, test reflexes and judgement. If those are impaired they shouldn’t be driving independent of the reason they’re impaired. Similarly for politicians, don’t let them pass laws when their judgment is impaired.
As for actually helping the victims, I’m not sure. What I’ve seen that helped was crises. A lot of people temporarily got over their problems for WWII. There was a war on. Suicide rates go down during wars that look actually dangerous. Mental health problems are alleviated. Also at the beginning of economic crises. And natural disasters, hurricanes and such. People get cheerful and excited and energetic. But when things settle down they usually aren’t any better off.
I think what it is, is that usually they’re stuck in a game where they’re losing and they don’t see anything to do about it. But when the war or disaster hits, it looks like it changes the rules. It might be an opportunity. And after it’s over, the opportunity is gone.
People who see a real opportunity for something that looks like success to them are much less likely to do addictive behaviors. But I don’t know in general how to get that set up.
James, I don’t disagree with a single thing that you wrote in that comment. View this post as a lament rather than a policy prescription. As I wrote in the post itself, I believe that this measure will inevitably lead some people—even if only one—to abuse drugs who otherwise would not have. And that’s a darned shame.
Daev S.
What the f. have your beliefs got to do with anything?
The purpose and effect of the “new law” have been explained to you now several times, and while you admitted to not knowing anytting about the situation really before you started mouthing off at DW, it has not affected you in the least here, where you have gone on at greater and even dumber length with your naive so-called thoughts on this non-matter.
Once again :: there is NO difference in practice between the old law and new one! None! Give it a break guys and gals. It’s just the f***ing media taking you fror a ride again.
But that’s ok, I’m sure you will line up for your bird flu vaccine too.
Harvey Bialy,
Your well-reasoned comments are always a pleasure to read.
Harvey: Dave is certainly right that if nothing else a few more people will wind up using because of this–most likely, people who run across the border from California and some of the other border states. They’ll hear “it’s legal now” and they’ll head down there.
I don’t, however, see that as a crisis.
And I’m not portraying it as one, Dean.
But that’s ok, I’m sure you will line up for your bird flu vaccine too.
I dunno.
A long time ago we had a scare about “swine flu”. I listened to a bunch of virologists and such, and they thought the vaccine was stupid and said they wouldn’t take it. I didn’t take it either. There was no epidemic even in places that didn’t have the vaccine, and a few people got serious side effects. The virologists were right.
But, just suppose. Just suppose somebody had used some sort of biowarfare agent and it turned out that people who’d taken the swine flu vaccine were resistant. I’d have felt so stupid. So would the virologists. Assuming we survived long enough to find out what we’d done to ourselves.
A bird flu vaccine could turn out the same way. You can’t be sure they aren’t doing it for your own good.
Very wise, Dave. The notion of victimless crimes has always been embraced by the Boomers and our incessant inward gaze. Very shortsighted indeed. I especially like this quote because it’s so true: “Human beings are social animals. We exist within a social milieu. We are not solitary hunters like cats. We have friends and co-workers and families and what happens to them touches and influences our lives.”