Apr 29, 2010
Is the “War on Drugs” modern-day Prohibition?
Like this post?
At the Britannica Blog, Robert McHenry quotes H. L. Mencken against Prohibition, and then asks us to exchange Mencken’s “Prohibition” with our contemporary “War on Drugs,” and see how it reads.
McHenry claims that, compared to Prohibition, our “war” is
the exact same terrible idea, this time conducted even more ruthlessly, at enormous cost in lives and money and social peace, to no good end whatever.
What do you think?
* * * * *
Pretty much, yep. With, unsurprisingly, basically the same consequences, but now diffused over several decades instead of just one.
Sinful men will be sinful until the end comes. The same is true of foolish men. And frankly, if someone wants to smoke marijuana, I cannot see that the government has any right to interfere with that–especially at a federal level. Then again, I’m one of the few, the proud, the outmoded believers in the 9th Amendment; and yes, I know it’s been dead for decades.
I don’t think I know enough about the war on drugs–its history, current state, effects–to think anything meaningful about it. (to be honest…I didn’t know that there still was a war on drugs.)
i wonder what Officer McGruff has to offer on the topic.
This is a big question. On the one hand, there are those, like Doug Wilson, who contend that the Bible does not teach that the drug trade should be prohibited, and thus there is no warrant for our war on drugs.
On the other, we must face the reality of the consequences of legalizing the drug trade. In a welfare society, the consequences could be even more devastating.
I’ve not read any good Christian arguments on how drug legalization could occur, so this is extemporaneous: but I think a gradual legalization of the drug trade would be a wise policy when coupled with an appropriate change in welfare policies.
It is worth mentioning here, that America has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. That should rattle us out of the status quo. The fact that the overwhelming majority of inmates are due to drug violations is no small matter.
Soft drugs are pretty much legal here in the Netherlands. And we’re a welfare state – at least to American standards. Devastating consequences? Not really. At least when you compare it to the millions or billions of dollars spent on locking up soft drugs related “criminals”, overfull prisons, stigmas related to excons which ensure that they’re pretty much stuck in a bad life..instead we get our occasional weed from the coffee shop on the corner and get on with our lives.
And of course there are always people that abuse drugs – just as there are always people that abuse alcohol, or food, or sex, or fast cars, or credit cards..the human capacity for destruction is astounding and will always find a way.
http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/going-soft-on-cannabis.pdf has an interesting booklet on Cannabis law in the UK.
From a use standpoint, one can consume alcohol without violating any biblical prohibitions, but the same cannot be said of drugs. A case *might* be made for light or casual marijuana use, but it is much easier to enjoy an alcoholic beverage without coming “under the influence” than it is to smoke a joint without quickly experiencing the effects – and that is the point. Drugs are intended to change the emotional and mental state and go beyond what Scripture teaches about remaining self-controlled and alert.
As for regulation, that becomes a political issue. I don’t think one could make a strictly biblical case for or against a secular society regulating any given behavior. But as an example, I think homosexual marriage should not be allowed because of the overall damage I think it would do to society. Similarly, I think drugs should be banned because of the damage they would cause.
The fact that a lot of people choose to break the law and sin in the dark is not a valid argument that the law should be changed.
Chris,
I agree that laws are not a matter of pragmatism–just because people break the law in droves doesn’t mean the law is wrong or should be changed. But I draw a distinction that all laws must be subject to a scriptural mandate.
Doug Wilson makes a compelling case for using the Bible as the sole arbiter of what should and shouldn’t be legal in a society. He has some brief excursions on the topic in his book on Ecclesiastes, entitled “Joy at the End of the Tether.”
You’ll also get a taste for it by reading his blog: http://www.dougwils.com/
He’s persuaded me that all political issues are spiritual issues, that the Bible has something to say about, directly or indirectly.
I still can’t figure out why cigarettes are legal and marijuana isn’t.
Marijuana has even more cancer causing agents than cigarettes.
Since cigarettes were such a big industry before the dangers were discovered, it’s harder to make them illegal.
Wow, really? Marijuana studies show that marijuana not only is free of carcinogens but that it may even prevent lung cancer. Get your facts straight.
Speaking strictly on the basis of the Constitution, the Federal Government, who passed the laws that brought about the war on drugs, really has no business making laws like this. It is an overreaching application of the “Interstate Commerce” clause, which has been abused elsewhere as well.
But as a matter of personal liberty, one cannot legitimately claim that it is society’s obligation to protect someone from themselves. If someone wants to put junk food into their bodies for 20 years and give themselves a stroke, then that is their choice. The collective “we” do not get to tell other people what they can and cannot do to themselves.
As with alcohol and tobacco laws, there should be a legal age of possession, at which point it can be assumed that the person has been informed of the risks, and can choose to ignore or heed them. At any rate, it becomes their decision.
Likewise, there should be things that cannot be done while under the influence of any mind-altering drug, such as operating heavy machinery or weapons, as then it becomes a matter of public safety, not just the safety of the individual under the influence.
As a matter of Christian perspective, there’s really nothing to speak of. This isn’t a Theocracy, it’s a Constitutional Republic. The Scriptures speak of personal behavior, but it is absolutely absurd to assume that non-religious people should obey Christian principles, or that they should be punished if they do not.
I’d love to see a Supreme Court ruling that limited application of that clause. I think lots of people wouldn’t know what to do without the federal government telling them.
Shoot, that wasn’t 22 words! I’ve failed to give an exceedingly thoughtful response. and now I’m all worked up about Ron Paul.
“one cannot legitimately claim that it is society’s obligation to protect someone from themselves”
But laws can be passed to protect me from the neighborhood druggie.
Sure. That’s exactly what I said. Similar laws exist to protect you from the neighborhood drunk.
What I have a problem with is women who are pregnant and and use drugs. At that point what protection is there for the unborn child whose very physical being is harmed by the intake of drugs and alcohol? Sure, DSS can step in after the fact and remove the child from the mother’s care, but there is nothing that can be done for the child in utero.
I tend to agree with that perspective. Legislating individual morality has never worked & is not the Government’s role as outlined by the Constitution. I hadn’t thought of the this parallel, but I think it holds true.
From a Christian’s point of view, I can’t be surprised when heathen act like heathen. I want to see people redeemed by the blood of the lamb, not legislated to a morality of my choosing.
Having a bit of experience with the subject of this current war, I’d suggest that having a controllable amount of alcohol is possible while having a controllable amount most drugs that there is a war on is almost impossible. I wouldn’t want police officers or judges or the president doing a little marijuana over lunch, but a beer, sure.
I don’t smoke pot, but I think it should be legalized. Cigarettes are full of toxins and chemicals and all sorts of nasty stuff . . . and they’re perfectly legal! Just show proof that you’re 18 or over and you can get a whole carton.
Are you familiar with the Asylum Street Spankers’ song, “Winning the War on Drugs?”
Well, if we substitute drugs into this part of the quote:
badger and annoy everyone who seeks to use drugs decently
as if there is a way to decently use drugs, then this is just another example of people trying to make a bad situation even worse.
Drugs can be used to help people who are sick, but as for social use, there is really no decent way to use them, and the drugs lords and dealers aren’t getting rich off people who are using drugs medicinally. They are getting rich off people who are tragically deceived into thinking that drugs can’t really be all that bad for you.
It’s bad enough that cigarettes are legal. Legalizing drugs would just increase the suffering that is already happening because of them.
Mark 9:42 has a strong warning for people who would lead others into sin.
Seat belts aren’t in the Bible. Speed limits aren’t in the Bible. Hunter safety courses aren’t in the Bible. Stop signs and traffic signals aren’t in the Bible.
All laws aren’t made based on something being a “sin”. We Christians have got to get that crap out of our perspective. Many, many laws are made based on the principle that one citizen has the right to not be terrorized or victimized by another citizen. Some are made based on the presumption that endangering oneself is actually harmful to others because of the cost of trying to keep you from harming yourself.
Alcohol and drugs being legal or not legal is not a “Biblical” issue. The government needs to do what is best in the bigger sense for the people that it serves. We fight drugs because kids are especially susceptible victims. It’s bad enough that Jimmy’s step dad can go into the convenience store and buy him cigarettes and beer, but what if he could go in there and buy him a rock? What if crystal meth were right beside the 5-hour Energy???
There are TERRIBLE addiction problems in our country, and that is WITH law enforcement working against the drug situation. To claim that it would get BETTER if the laws were gone is insane.
As well, to always couch this discussion with pro-cannabis language is deceptive – “legalizing drugs” and “legalizing marijuana” are two very, very different things. However, don’t even TRY to claim that marijuana is actually good for the teenage mind.
It’s not.
I work in health care and have seen a different side of the whole drug issue than I knew before. I think it would be insightful to hear the view of people who have worked in the DEA for a long time. I just attended a seminar on drugs by Robert Stutman, a career DEA agent. He has some interesting thoughts and presents statistics that will blow you away. It seems like people who press for legalization of drugs continually use an occasional smoke of marijuana or marijuana for medicinal purposes as their argument’s example. Like Bernard says above, this is NOT what we are facing on the issue of drugs today. One point he does make, that I wholly agree with, is the fact that regardless of what the laws are, the government will never be the solution to this problem, and it is a HUGE problem. http://www.thestutmangroup.com
I’m watching right now: American Drug War – The Last White Hope
[a 2007 documentary by writer/director Kevin Booth about the War on Drugs in the United States]
americandrugwar.com
my 2¢
I am amazed that this particular audience did not see the huge irony in McHenry’s statement:
“…enormous cost in lives and money and social peace, to no good end whatever.”
That is the exact reason to discourage (already banned) substances, for they cause all that.