"To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing,
if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Up In Smoke

by Hal_10000

Building on WVR’s “Longest War” post below, I wanted to emphasize one point.  The biggest reason I oppose the War on Drugs is precisely because of my regard for the Rule of Law.

Huh?

Put aside for the moment the bad things we do in the name of Drug Free America. Put aside the warrant-free raids, the anonymous informants, the violent entries, the money seizures.  Put aside letting violent and sometimes murdering informants run wild so we can get the big dogs.  What I’m concerned with for the moment is what the War on Drugs does to the Rule of Law itself.

The situation in this country, right now, is a sort of half-assed de facto legalization of marijuana.  The law is rarely enforced.  The problem is that when the law is enforced, it tends to be on the powerless.  Read this story about the bizarre surge in NYC pot busts.  And note that although blacks use marijuana less often than whites, they are far more likely to be arrested for it in NYC.  Look at the Cory Maye case, where a single burnt roach was used to hang a premeditated murder charge on him.  Look at politicians who work themselves into a lather about how we will “win the war” while knowing that if their kids are ever arrested, it will be swept under the carpet.  This is not justice.

Moreover, the majority of Americans simply ignore the law.  People can admit to having smoke marijuana with little or no consequence; stoned people have become a staple of bad sitcom writing.  This engenders not just a disrespect for marijuana laws, but a disrespect for law in general.

There was one extra paragraph in the article WVR linked to that I wanted to highlight:

But I still don’t have much patience for the reaction from the “can’t-we-all-just-do-a-bong” crowd, some of whom criticized the DEA for arresting these kids, and the university’s president for cooperating in the investigation. The law is the law is the law, whether it prohibits hiring illegal immigrants, cheating on your taxes, or not dealing and smoking dope. If you don’t like the law, work to change it. If you break the law, you take your chances. And don’t be shocked, shocked, when the authorities actually enforce it.

In my glibness on the Maye post, I let that point slip.  The law is the law.  I think police should prioritize other things, which is why I was dismayed at the SDSU bust.  But I’m disinclined to feel a great deal of sympathy for people who were, after all, doing something illegal.  The laws banning drugs, as O’Rourke noted, are not like the laws of segregation.  They are neither so vile nor so arbitrary that civil disobedience is called for.  If you choose to do drugs or deal drugs, you choose to take the risk of getting busted.

However, the argument remains: ending the War on Drugs would strengthen respect for the law.  Similar arguments could be made on other face-making, Maude Flander-pleasing, selectively-enforced laws such as the drinking age or prostitution.  The law is too important to be used a psychological crutch to make politicians feel like they’re doing something about the decline of morals.

Comments

Posted by on 05/09/08 at 09:36 PM from

Dude, excellent points.

Posted by Ed Kline on 05/10/08 at 12:21 AM from

They are neither so vile nor so arbitrary that civil disobedience is called for.

I am not entirely sure of that...but otherwise, very good post.

<< Back to main