Legalize Meth

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=004697&From=News

FEATURE ARTICLE

I wouldn't change my healthy lifestyle if drugs were legal.

Ernest Hancock
Website: http://www.ernesthancock.com

Legalize Methamphetamine! - by Marc Victor

I'm the last guy who ought to argue for the legalization of meth. As
a practicing criminal defense attorney, I make a good income from
defending people who are charged with drug crimes. If the drug war
ended, I would lose a substantial portion of my income. Additionally,
some would call me a health nut. I go to the gym six times a week and
eat organic foods as often as possible. I wouldn't change my healthy
lifestyle if drugs were legal. I have three little kids. I don't want
them ever to become drug addicts. I want them to grow up in a safe
world. Indeed, that's exactly why I want the drug war to end.

When I was in law school, a wise law professor of mine taught me that
if you are asking the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. In
regards to meth, the question is not whether meth is dangerous and
unhealthy. Over the years, I have represented countless meth users. I
have seen the consequences of meth use up close. I am convinced meth
use will likely ruin the user's life. It is an extraordinarily
dangerous addictive drug. Few drugs are more addictive or dangerous
than meth. Many of those who oppose legalization of meth identify the
horrors of meth use. I entirely agree with their assessment of meth's
dangers. Asking whether meth is dangerous or unhealthy or addictive
is not the right question.

The relevant question is whether our society would be better served
if meth was manufactured, distributed, bought and sold legally. The
answer is yes. There are two related but separate reasons why ending
the drug war is critical. First, a free society requires that the
drug war end. I refer to this argument as the freedom argument.
Second, the consequences of ending the drug war would yield economic
and other benefits which would greatly benefit our society. I refer
to this argument as the consequentialist argument.

Most readers will not be persuaded by the freedom argument. This fact
is disturbing to me. In fact, many of the issues which plague our
world will persist unless and until people come to respect the
principles embodied in terms such as individual responsibility, self
ownership and freedom. These concepts are what our country was
founded upon and the very reason why America prospered. Now, they are
given mere lip service if they are considered at all. If you shrug
your shoulders and brush off the freedom argument, you should be
ashamed of yourself. Whether you realize it or not, you are the
problem.

THE FREEDOM ARGUMENT

I'm a good dad. I don't want my kids using meth. Indeed, I will force
my opinion about not using meth upon my kids. I will prevent them
from using meth by force if necessary. As a dad, I have other
policies as well. For example, my kids are not allowed to ride their
motorized quads without helmets or to ride in the car without
seatbelts. They are not allowed to smoke cigarettes or skydive
either. However, at some point, my kids will be responsible to decide
for themselves what activities are too dangerous for them. Both
assessing the dangerousness of an activity and determining how much
danger is acceptable will become the exclusive domain of each of my
kids as it pertains to them. Resolving these questions for one's self
is an important task and responsibility of any free person.

The question of who gets to make decisions about the disposition of
certain property is central to understanding freedom. Who gets to
decide what activities are too dangerous for you? Should I get to
decide what activities are too dangerous for you? What about your
neighbor? Or the majority? Or the president? Or congress? Or some
judge? In a free society, the owner of the property gets to decide
how the property is used. Because you own your body, I assert that
you should decide how your body is used or abused.

In terms of the freedom argument, the question of legalization of
meth poses exactly the same question as many other issues currently
confounding our fellow citizens. The following non-exhaustive list
contains questions which are each different versions of the same
question about how a particular body is used:

Should people be allowed to eat Big Macs?

Should people be allowed to consume any unhealthy foods at all?

Should people be allowed to play football despite the risk of serious injury?

Should people be allowed to skydive or rock climb?

Should people be allowed to ride in cars without seatbelts?

Should unprotected sex between consenting adult strangers be allowed?

Should consenting adults be allowed to have sex in exchange for money?

Should adults be permitted to ingest marijuana for health reasons?

Should adults be permitted to ingest marijuana for mere personal pleasure?

Should competent adults be allowed to voluntarily end their lives if
they choose?

Each question begs the initial question about who gets to decide how
a particular human body is used. Those of us who are pro-freedom
would in each case conclude that the owner of the particular human
body in question should decide how that body is used. The initial
issue of who decides must be resolved first.

Although I would try my best to persuade others not to use meth, I
concede it is not my decision. Among adults, persuasion is fine, but
coercion is not. I will not force others to live by my assessments of
dangers. I respect the property of other people such that I respect
their right to use their property in ways I vigorously disagree with.
I have no claim on how others use their property unless and until
their activities trespass upon my property.

The freedom argument is much bigger than the question of whether meth
should be legal. It certainly resolves the question, but it raises
larger questions about the very nature of government. Any legitimate
role of government is confined to protecting rights. Indeed, unless
you disagree with the principles upon which this country was founded
and believe government is the source of rights which may be
distributed to us or taken away, you must agree that government can
have no rights other than the ones we individually delegate to it.
Because you have no right to be my daddy, you have no such right to
delegate to government. Further, because no person individually has
any such right, even the majority of people added together
collectively have no such right. Therefore, when the government acts
as my daddy, it acts wrongfully; even if it acts pursuant to an
accurately counted democratic vote. Although it is perfectly fine for
me to act as a daddy to my kids, the government has n!
o right to act as a daddy for us.

Some people posit that legalized meth would send the wrong message to
people about using meth. However, the government's role is not to
send messages to us about what is right or wrong or good or bad. We
don't need messages from government. Free people determine for
themselves how to run their lives. I have a right to be a self
destructive idiot if I choose. I own me.

Additionally, the "messages from government" objection overlooks an
important point. The concepts of legal and illegal are far different
from the concepts of right and wrong or good and bad. Because an
activity is legally permissible does not obligate people to conclude
such an activity is right or good. Merely because the law allows my
kids to insult other kids doesn't prevent my wife and me from
successfully teaching them not to do it. The unwillingness or
inability of many people to invest the mental acuity to distinguish
between these concepts has contributed to an intellectual
feeblemindedness which is akin to a malignant tumor killing our
society. The "messages from government" objection nourishes that
tumor. We should embrace the concept that we are free to adopt
personal standards of conduct which exceed the minimal threshold
defined by law.

I regret devoting so few words to the freedom argument. It deserves
much more. Many others have far more eloquently detailed the case for
freedom. I hope to live to witness the day when the freedom argument
is accorded the respect it deserves. I hope this skeletal argument
stirs the interest of those who read it and encourages them to
explore it more fully. The reason our society has been deteriorating
in so many ways is because it has come to accord less and less
respect to the freedoms of others. Winning the freedom argument is
the only way to destroy the cancer that infects our world.

THE CONSEQUENTIALIST ARGUMENT

Some people say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing
over and over while expecting different results. They are right. The
government has been recklessly ramping up the war on drugs for the
past thirty five years. Every year we get tougher laws and tougher
sentences. Approximately 1.6 million people are needlessly arrested
every year for non-violent drug offenses. Many more non-violent drug
users are simply charged without arrest. Some of them are students
who lose their student loans and can no longer afford college. Others
are people who hold professional licenses and can no longer work in
their professions. Lives are being needlessly ruined.

The growth of the prison industry has mushroomed. We now have private
companies in the prison business. This is no surprise when you
consider that the United States claims 4.6% of the world's population
but 22.5% of the world's prison population. The DEA has grown from
2,775 employees in 1972 to almost 11,000 employees with 86 foreign
offices in 62 countries in 2005. We have well over two million people
in prison. Since 1980, America's general population has increased
20%, while America's prison population has increased at twenty times
that rate or an astonishing 400%. America imprisons more people as a
percentage of our population than any other country in the world.
This is a sad state of affairs for any country; especially one which
refers to itself as the land of the free.

Despite the explosive expansion of government to fight the war on
drugs, drug use is more prevalent today than it was before the war on
drugs started. Additionally, drugs are cheaper, more potent and
easier to get than they were in the early years of the drug war.
Throwing more money at the issue has not resulted in fewer people
using drugs. Even the federal government admits drug use has
increased recently from 6% in 1993 to over 8% in 2003. Despite the
frantically increasing efforts to curb the flow of drugs, high school
students report drugs are still easy to obtain. Almost 90% of twelfth
graders report marijuana is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to get. Over
47% of twelfth graders say cocaine is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to
get and more than 32% say heroin is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to
get. I have had clients tell me they became addicted to drugs when
they were in prison. Even in a prison setting, drugs are prevalent.

Not only are drugs readily available, some of them have become more
dangerous as a result of the drug war. Looking specifically at meth,
the drug war has resulted in exacerbating the dangers associated with
amphetamine use. While attempting to put the hysteria currently
surrounding meth use in perspective, a columnist named Jack Shafer
who writes for Slate aptly stated the following:

In the mid-1960s, just before the government declared war on
amphetamines, the average user swallowed his pills, which were of
medicinal purity and potency. Snorting and smoking stimulants was
almost unheard of, and very few users injected intravenously. Today,
40 years later, snorting, smoking, and injecting methamphetamines of
unpredictable potency and dubious purity has become the norm-with all
the dreadful health consequences. If the current scene illustrates
how the government is winning the war on drugs, I'd hate to see what
losing looks like. See, http://www.slate.com/id/2123838 August 3, 2005.

The United States now spends over fifty billion dollars every year to
combat the war on drugs. The war on drugs has been a colossal and
unparalleled failure. Despite my countless conversations with judges,
prosecutors, police officers, DEA agents and drug dealers, it is
extraordinarily rare for me to find anyone who thinks the drug war is
working or will ever work under any circumstances. Indeed, despite my
countless invitations, I have yet to find anyone willing to debate me
publicly on the drug war. Imagine a fifty billion dollar annual
program nobody seems willing to defend.

I understand why nobody wants to debate me on this issue. I believe
the people who work in the justice system, and truly understand the
problems associated with the drug war, know they would be debating
the wrong side of the issue. I recently argued the case for meth
legalization before a group of judges and prosecutors. I was
disappointed during question time when, despite my provoking and
challenging them, there was only one half-hearted attempt to engage
me on the issues. The case for legalization is overwhelming.

I have had occasion to talk privately and confidentially with many
drug dealers for well over a decade. I estimate I have represented
hundreds of drug dealers. Although some have simply been users who
sell to support their habit, others have been major players in big
drug organizations. I have found many of them to be bright people who
are well aware that an end to the drug war would immediately put an
end to their businesses. They realize that they could not compete
with large corporations in a legal market. Their ability to make
money by manufacturing, distributing and selling drugs exists solely
because of the drug war. They very much want the war on drugs to
continue and even expand.

Many drug dealers understand that each large drug bust brings
increased profits for them. Although a drug seizure is bad news for
the particular drug dealer involved, it is wonderful news for all the
other drug dealers in the market. When you see government agents
celebrating a large drug seizure, imagine all the other drug dealers
celebrating along with them.

The economics of drug sales are no different than any other product
sold in the market. Every big drug seizure causes a temporary
decrease in the supply of that drug in the relevant market. However,
the drug seizure doesn't affect the demand for the drugs. Drug users
still want drugs despite some drug dealer being arrested. When the
demand remains constant and the supply is decreased, prices go up.
Imagine being a drug dealer with a big supply of drugs on hand when
prices suddenly go up. It would be accurate to say that drug dealers
gain the most, through increased profits, when government agents make
a seizure. Increased profits also serve to entice people to embark on
new careers as drug dealers. Drug dealers love the drug war and do
not want it to end. If you support the drug war, you are on the side
of, and act as an unpaid lobbyist for the plight of the drug dealer.

Some of the drug dealers I have met are actually very nice,
non-violent people. I have represented drug dealers who do not use
drugs at all. They were simply unable or unwilling to refuse an
illegal opportunity to make a lot of money. However, some of the drug
dealers I have met are not nice people. They sell their drugs with
the help of violent street gangs. Some of these gang members
intentionally market drugs to kids. Because gang members generally
can not utilize the court system to settle disputes over drug sales,
nor can they insure their merchandise against losses, violence and
guns are necessarily involved.

Simply causing meth to be manufactured illegally is by itself a huge
problem. As a result of illegal meth labs, toxic chemicals used to
produce methamphetamine are often discarded in rivers, fields, and
forests. The environmental damage which occurs results in ever
expanding cleanup costs. The massive growth in costs to cleanup such
environmental messes is also illustrative of the failure of current
policy. The DEA's annual cost for cleanup of clandestine meth
laboratories in the United States has increased steadily from 2
million in 1995 to 23.8 million a mere seven years later in 2002. A
huge collection of well documented facts about the failure of the
current drug policy can be found at http://www.drugwarfacts.org.

I have heard the saying that those who do not study history are
doomed to repeat it. I suspect some criminal defense lawyer in the
1920's incurred wrath from the establishment for writing an article
advocating the legalization of alcohol. I would bet the nice attorney
was attacked by small thinkers who repeatedly pointed out the harmful
attributes of alcohol.

In case you are unaware, the government decided in 1919 to amend the
United States Constitution to grant power to congress to prohibit the
manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol. Their drug war played
out just like ours; a complete and total disaster. However, it was
the best thing that ever happened to organized crime. The
manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol were conducted entirely
in illegal and violent markets. Criminals prospered and criminal
organizations grew. A major crime wave began in the 1920s and
continually increased until the end of prohibition in 1933 when it
immediately started to reverse. Prohibition did nothing to curb the
desire of people to use alcohol. Indeed, both the per capita
consumption of alcohol as well as the rate of alcoholism increased
during prohibition. Illegal clandestine stills manufactured alcohol
of inconsistent and unpredictable quality. Law enforcement was
overwhelmed chasing after people involved in alcohol related crim!
es. Does any of this seem familiar to you?

In 1933, they figured it out and repealed the eighteenth amendment.
To be fair, we still have people with substantial alcohol abuse
problems. It is a real problem. We have no shortage of alcohol
related crimes. However, violent criminal street gangs do not make
money from the sale of alcohol. Although few people "home brew"
alcoholic beverages, people do not brew alcoholic beverages in
clandestine labs. Nobody is offered large cash rewards to transport
alcohol. The Budweiser guy doesn't fight the Miller guy if they both
happen to arrive at the store at the same time to deliver their drug.
Alcohol companies settle disputes peacefully in court. Alcoholics can
seek help without the fear of criminal prosecutions. More resources
can be devoted to apprehending real thugs because our justice system
is not overloaded with cases of people manufacturing, distributing or
selling alcohol. Isn't this obviously a better deal?

We know certain things for sure. If meth was no longer illegal:

1. All dangerous clandestine meth labs in residential neighborhoods
would close;

2. All dangerous street gangs would be out of the meth business;

3. Every dime currently spent on meth prohibition could be spent on real crime;

4. Meth addicts would have no legal disincentive to seek help;

5. The manufacture of meth would be safe and produce a consistent product; and

6. Toxic waste from meth production would be safely disposed.

If you support maintaining the war on drugs, you must necessarily
conclude that either I am wrong about the above six assertions or
that the benefits of the drug war outweigh the obvious benefits
contained in the six assertions. It is difficult for me to imagine
one could rationally and honestly dispute any of the six assertions.
They are obvious and virtually guaranteed to flow from legalization.
Therefore, a drug war supporter is left with the argument that the
drug war's benefits outweigh the benefits contained in the six
assertions. If this is your position, I challenge you to honestly
reweigh the costs and benefits of each scenario. Unless you put your
finger on the scale because you personally benefit from the drug war,
you must conclude legalization wins.

I do not intend to claim that the above six assertions are the only
benefits of legalization. I list them together because I find them to
be indisputable. There are other benefits of legalization. I suspect
many people would either not experiment with or stop using meth.
Recently, a teenage meth user confirmed for me that she and her
friends started using meth at least in part because it was illegal. I
cannot recall any friends of mine who didn't drink alcohol prior to
reaching age twenty-one. Indeed, I consumed more alcohol prior to
reaching age twenty-one than I do today or since I have been age
twenty-one and one month.

In countries where the alcohol drinking age is sixteen, rates of
alcohol related problems appear to be lower than in the United States
where the drinking age is twenty-one. The National Institute on
Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse reports that in 2003, 5.55% of Americans
were either alcohol abusing or alcohol dependent. The Austrian
drinking age is sixteen and 2.2% are regarded as alcohol dependent.
The German drinking age is sixteen and 3.9% of Germans' alcohol use
is considered harmful.

Even during prohibition, while rates of death from alcoholism and
cirrhosis were rising in the United States, they were decreasing
during the same time period in Great Britain, Denmark and Ireland
where alcohol use was legal. I recently traveled to Amsterdam where
marijuana use is legal for those over eighteen years of age.
Marijuana use among minors in Amsterdam is decreasing. Indeed, the
rate of marijuana use by minors is five times less than what it is in
the United States. Even among adults, the rate of marijuana use in
the United States is twice as high as in the Netherlands where use of
marijuana is legal. Many of the locals informed me that marijuana use
is simply not exciting and they virtually don't ever use it unless
people from out of town are visiting. As you may expect, I had a lot
of questions for proprietors of marijuana coffee shops. I personally
witnessed a peaceful and safe marijuana trade in Amsterdam. Although
I wouldn't want to live there for unrelated e!
conomic reasons, the Netherlands is a good example of why
legalization makes sense.

Tobacco is a far deadlier drug than is meth. For the year 2000,
tobacco is blamed for causing 435,000 deaths. Deaths resulting from
the direct or indirect use of all illegal drugs including meth,
cocaine, OxyContin, heroine and ecstasy for the same year total
17,000. id. Despite the fact that tobacco is legal, tobacco use is
declining. In 1956, 42% of adults smoked. In 1980, only 33% of
Americans smoked. Additionally, in 1977, 29% of high school seniors
smoked. Four years later, the number of high school seniors who smoke
had fallen to 20%. Education about the dangers of tobacco use can be
credited for the decline of tobacco use which occurred while the drug
was legally available and without any of the crime and violence
associated with the drug war. The recent rise in popularity of
non-alcoholic beer and low nicotine cigarettes can be attributed to
the same phenomenon. The same beneficial effects could be applicable
to meth and other illegal drugs.

Fortunately, people are slowly waking up to the fact that this war on
drugs is the entirely wrong approach. I am encouraged by a courageous
group of law enforcement and former law enforcement members who have
joined together to form a group entitled Law Enforcement Against
Prohibition or LEAP. A visit to their website at http://leap.cc is
well worth the time invested. The over two thousand law enforcement
members of LEAP state the following, "The membership of LEAP believe
to save lives and lower the rates of disease, crime and addiction, as
well as to conserve tax dollars, we must end drug prohibition." The
members of LEAP are willing and eager to debate their views with
anyone willing to try to defend the drug war. Also, judges are
finally starting to speak out. See,
http://www.judgesagainstthedrugwar.org which contains judicial
opinions critical of the drug war.

Astute observers of the drug war might point out that the $50-$69
billion dollars currently being spent on the drug war annually could
be used to more effectively address the problems associated with drug
abuse. That money could go a long way to facilitate drug abuse
education, treatment and prevention.

Additionally, some may argue that legalization of drugs could be
administered in much the same way alcohol is currently dealt with.
Certainly, people who commit real crimes should be punished whether
or not they were using drugs at the time. Legalization of drugs does
not mean laws must permit unsafe drug impaired drivers on the roads.
Further, employers and other private citizens would be free to
prohibit any and all drug use at their workplaces or on their
property as they can now with alcohol. Indeed, what would change with
a reasonable scheme of legalization would be a deletion of much of
the crime and violence only; everything else would remain much the
same or improve. It is a substantially better deal than the ongoing
and worsening disaster we currently endure.

The drug war is un-American. One cannot simultaneously value freedom
and yet support a governmental scheme which denies the individual his
or her sovereignty over his or her own body. Indeed, control over
one's own body is the most fundamental of all rights. Worse, the drug
war has effectively birthed countless violent criminal enterprises.
This possibly well intentioned effort has resulted in effectively
creating our 51st state; the state of incarceration. The state's
population is growing out of control and it is choking the life out
of the other 50 states. Thousands of peaceful Americans are currently
living in cages because of the drug war. The drug war is lunacy and
it must end immediately. As it did for the revolutionaries who
founded our country, the time has come for us to be bold and
courageous. We must speak out against this horrendous mistake. We
have the better case.

Marc J. Victor is a practicing criminal defense attorney located in
Chandler, Arizona. He can be reached via his website at
http://www.attorneyforfreedom.com