Downsize DC on Prohibition

Taking action against the Drug War and other prohitions: Prohibit Prohibition

Two criticisms I have against the otherwise-excellent Ken Burns Prohibition documentary.

Prohibition and the Health Care Cost Argument

Check out my latest at the Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

From seat belt laws, to smoking bans, to prohibition of (some) drugs, prohibitionists have led their propaganda campaigns against personal freedom with a "health care cost" argument. "Society" (by which they mean, taxpayers) will bear the health care costs from vehicle injuries, diseases from second-hand smoke, and addiction.

And now, they are extending their successful agitprop campaigns to salty, sugary, or fatty foods -- that is, all the foods you like!

But make no mistake: Their muckraking logic could extend to nearly EVERY facet of your life. What isn't healthy for you should be regulated or banned, because "society" will have to pay for your healthcare costs.

The prohibitionists have it exactly backwards...

The health care costs of supposedly "irresponsible" behavior isn't a reason to ban the behavior, it is a reason to get the government to stop paying for health care.

War on Drugs: How the Attorney General Will Waste Your Money and Trash the Constitution

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/war-on-drugs-how-the-attorney-general-will-waste-your-money-and-trash-the-constitution

Proposition 19 is on California's ballot this November. It would legalize marijuana in that state.

U.S. Attorney General Holder hates Prop 19, and if it passes he's committed to wasting more of YOUR tax dollars to continue a federal War on Pot in California.

As the letter below indicates, Holder's plan is unworkable and unconstitutional.

But Congress can stop him. They can pass legislation withholding funds for Holder's plan, if necessary. But it might not have to come to that. If members of Congress from both parties announce that they are opposed to Holder's plan and will respect the will of the people of California, Holder and President Obama will likely back away.

You have the right to know TODAY where your Representative and Senators stand on this issue. After all, the election is just 15 days away!

You can ask them using DownsizeDC.org's End the Mexican Civil War Campaign.

Here is the letter I sent. You may borrow from it, making changes according to your own state where appropriate . . .

If California's Prop 19 passes, it will mean the voters believe the War on Pot is unjust, ineffective, unworkable, and too expensive.

If Nebraska passed something like Prop 19, how would you react? Would you follow the will of the people? Or would you want the DEA to randomly terrorize law-abiding Nebraskans?

Attorney General Holder wants to do the latter. If Prop 19 passes, Holder promises to "vigorously enforce" federal marijuana laws in California.

This would be a complete waste of my tax dollars! There won't be enough DEA agents to effectively enforce the federal laws.

More importantly, most federal marijuana laws - as with most federal drug laws in general - violate the Tenth Amendment. This means that the fraction of pot growers and users who do get arrested in CA will be law-abiding citizens singled out arbitrarily or maliciously by the DEA.

Please speak out against Holder's plan. Please do so before the election, so I know where you stand.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

And please share this message with friends who support the Tenth Amendment and oppose the War on Drugs.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

The Palin "Gaffe" That Wasn't

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Republican politicians (and Democratic politicians, too) would have, just a few years ago, kept repeating talking points about (1) the harmfulness of drugs, (2) the dangers drugs pose to our youth, and (3) the importance of equipping law enforcement with the tools it needs. Even if asked point-blank whether pot smokers who don't harm anybody should be arrested, they would dodge the direct question and repeat the talking points.

Palin's remarks would have been "politically incorrect." She would have committed a "gaffe" by telling the truth.

Today, nobody cares.

More on Peter McWilliams

I've posted this on the Peter McWilliams tribute blog.

Several others have also posted original blog posts, including Paul Krassner, and there are also several re-posts from around the web. Check it out!

War on Drugs: Remembering a fallen hero

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/war+on+drugs%3A+remembering+a+fallen+hero

Quote of the Day: The Constitution was based upon the fact the federal government had exceedingly limited powers. It was only allowed to do eighteen very limited things -- the enumerated powers, period. And everything else belonged to the states and the individuals to regulate. - Peter McWilliams

A personal message from Jim Babka . . .

Best-selling author Peter McWilliams died ten years ago today, June 14, 2000.

I remember when I heard the news. I can still feel the sickness and anger that I felt that day.

I didn't know Peter personally, but I admired him. Some of my colleagues were good friends or acquaintances of his.

Peter was an eloquent champion of limited government and personal freedom. But his life was cut short by the War on Drugs. The federal government denied him the medication he needed to live and thrive.

What he went through, I wouldn't wish on anyone, let alone my family and friends. But we have it in our power to prevent similar tragedies from happening to others. Please tell Congress to return to the Constitution, and end the insane War on Drugs.

You may copy or borrow from the following letter . . .

Today marks a cruel anniversary in the barbaric history of the War on Drugs. On this day, ten years ago, the federal government caused the death of the best-selling author Peter McWilliams.

Do you know his story?

* In 1996 Peter was diagnosed with cancer and AIDS
* The medications he needed to treat these diseases caused extreme vomiting, and he could not keep them down long enough for them to work
* That same year, Proposition 215 legalized medical marijuana in California
* Under the recommendation of four physicians, Peter started using marijuana.
* The marijuana controlled his nausea, restored his appetite, and allowed his medications to work

Marijuana saved Peter's life, for the moment. This led him to fund research into medical marijuana and to start a business supplying it to buyer's cooperatives. The DEA took notice, raided and trashed his home, and even confiscated his computer, which contained the manuscript of his latest book.

Peter was charged with being a "drug kingpin!" And then, he was hamstrung, legally. The federal judge in the case took away his defense, barring any mention of . . .

* California's medical marijuana law
* his terminal illness
* how medical marijuana allowed him to keep down his medication and prolong his life

While the legal process dragged on, the government prevented Peter from using the marijuana that controlled his nausea. Peter was required to pass drug tests. He complied, even though his life was at risk, because . . .

* Peter's mother and brother had to put up their homes as collateral to post his bail
* If he failed the test, their homes would have been seized by the government

Peter's health deteriorated until he died at the age of 50. The vomiting had taken a tremendous toll on his alimentary canal, as well as his heart, and even his teeth. Despite the suffering, he never lost his sense of humor. And the reason I most admired him was that he felt sympathy for his tormentors, rather than rage. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=508

Marijuana saved Peter's life, but the War on Drugs destroyed it.

Peter's most noted book was "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do." It promoted the idea that each person can do whatever they please with their own bodies and property, so long as they don't interfere with the right of others to do the same. So let me ask you:

* What business is it of yours what people choose to do with their bodies and property?
* Where in the Constitution is the federal government empowered to deny people like Peter McWilliams the medicine they need?

Sadly, Peter wasn't the only victim of your War on Drugs. He was just one victim among many. The long list of your victims includes . . .

* terminally ill patients for whom marijuana (or some other illegal drug) could ease pain and nausea
* people with psychological problems for whom now-illegal drugs could help calm them or clear their minds
* young people whose futures are ruined not because of drugs, but because of a "criminal" record
* innocent adults and children on our streets, in Mexico, and across the world caught in drug turf warfare
* innocent victims of no-knock SWAT raids and asset forfeiture
* young people who get hooked on drugs precisely because, unlike legal drugs such as cigarettes and alcohol, they're available to be bought and sold on the streets and school grounds

The United States leads the world in incarceration rates, mostly because of non-violent, consensual crimes like drug possession. Apparently President Obama wants even more people in prison. He wants increased funding for interdiction, law enforcement, and the continuation of bloody drug wars across the border.

I suggest you do something else. Read and learn from Peter's books - especially "Nobody's Business." And then put an end to this stupid, immoral, and unconstitutional War on Drugs.

END LETTER

You may send your letter through DownsizeDC.org's Educate The Powerful System.

And we urge you to spread this message far and wide. Share it on Facebook.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Flag Day and Peter McWilliams

Tomorrow, June 14, is Flag Day.

It would be appropriate if all flags flew at half-mast. Or upside-down.

That's because it's the tenth anniversary of the death of Peter McWilliams, one of the most prominent victims of the War on Drugs, precisely because he was a strong advocate for drug legalization and the repeal of all consensual crimes - behavior that does not do involuntary harm to anyone.

Five years ago, the Gonzales v Raich Supreme Court decision was handed down, which ruled that federal medical marijuana raids in states where it's legal was a valid application of the Constitution's Commerce Clause. (Justice Stevens, we will NOT miss you, and kudos to Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas for their dissents.) The ruling was yet another kick in the teeth for the friends of liberty, and "defiled Peter McWilliams' Corpse." (see below.)

The ruling came a week short of the fifth anniversary of Peter's death. When I was reminded of the exact date, I decided to learn more about Peter and post about what I learned. I posted the following items from June 8 through June 14, 2005:

Peter McWilliams

Supreme Court Defiles Peter McWilliams' Corpse

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do is Online!

Peter McWilliams Case - In His Own Words

A Conversation With Peter McWilliams

Conversation With Peter McWilliams Part 2

Conversation With Peter McWilliams, Part 3

Harry Browne on Peter McWilliams

We Miss You, Peter McWilliams

R.W. Bradford on McWilliams

Video of Peter's Speech at 1998 LP Convention

Champion of Liberty

How Did Peter Die?

Winding Down

Stay tuned: there will be more material this week. Also, in January a tribute page to Peter McWilliams was created. It doesn't just dwell on Peter's activism, but on his entire life and work. No need to create a MySpace account to read and learn: http://home.myspace.com/petermcwilliamstribute

War on Drugs: How to defeat the drug lords

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/war-on-drugs-how-to-defeat-the-drug-lords

Quote of the day: "There are some general features of a socialist enterprise, whether it's the Post Office, schools or the war on drugs. The enterprise is inefficient, expensive, very advantageous to a small group of people and harmful to a lot of people." -- Milton Friedman

The federal government's Merida Initiative is a $1.6 billion program to "help" the Mexican government fight the drug cartels.

As you'll see below, the results have been catastrophic. But Congress can help defeat the cartels and bring an end to this tragedy . . .

* without sending troops
* or more foreign "aid"
* while making your streets safer
* and saving the taxpayers tens of billions per year

Instead of supporting Mexico's militarization of the Drug War, we can bankrupt the cartels.

We can do this by embracing our most cherished national values, individual liberty and personal responsibility.

If we end drug prohibition, the cartels will lose their obscene black-market profits which they use to terrorize both Mexico and the United States.

If you want . . .

* peace and stability in Mexico,
* with lower crime and more freedom in the U.S.,
* then please tell Congress to end the War on Drugs.

You may borrow from, modify, or copy this letter . . .

Drugs are not tearing Mexico apart, drug PROHIBITION is! As Harvard Economist Jeffrey Miron notes: http://tinyurl.com/dmycbr

"Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead. Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after."

The news of Prohibition-caused violence south of the border is quite sobering . . .

* 22,700 have died in Mexico's War on Drugs since December, 2006 http://tinyurl.com/2dyya7u
* Which is FOUR TIMES the number of U.S. military deaths in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars since 2001 http://www.icasualties.org
* More and more Mexicans are fleeing to America, NOT to "seek a better life" but because they fear for their lives http://tinyurl.com/2dthkhu
* Violence is spreading to once-peaceful cities http://tinyurl.com/y8x9vth
* Tourism is plummeting, and charitable missions to Mexico have been cancelled

But there is hope. Paul Armentano of NORML shows how we can defeat the drug lords. He notes that . . . http://tinyurl.com/3ygpegl

* Between 60 and 70 percent of the profits reaped by Mexican drug lords are derived from the exportation and sale of cannabis to the American market
* 28 percent of their profits are derived from the distribution of cocaine

If Congress repealed federal drug prohibition laws . . .

* the narcotics business would move from the black market, governed by violence, to the open market governed by the rule of law
* which means that drug users could start purchasing from legitimate businesses
* drugs would be regulated and taxed by the states in pharmacies and drug stores, not purchased on the streets and school grounds
* drug abusers could be treated for their addictions just as we successfully do with alcohol and cigarettes
* prison crowding would end, providing room to keep true social threats behind bars
* drug pushers and street gangs would see their profits disappear
* and drug lords from Mexico to Afghanistan would be crippled by financial losses

America has enough problems. The last thing we need is for the chaos in Mexico to spread here. End drug prohibition in America now, and the Mexican drug lords will suffer a fatal blow.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

We also invite you to "like" our Facebook page and tell your friends about us.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org

The War on Drugs: Persisting in Failure

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/the-war-on-drugs-persisting-in-failure

News item after news item underscores the futility of the War on Drugs. Yet Congress and the President want to continue the same failed policies, no matter how many innocent people are caught in the crossfire.

Please send a letter telling Congress to end the failed, unconstitutional War on Drugs.

You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .

In November, the American Medical Association urged Congress to reclassify marijuana as a "drug with possible medicinal benefit." http://tinyurl.com/yl8fywl

I believe you should go further than that, and re-think the entire War on Drugs . . .

* 87% of drug studies found that drug law enforcement was associated with increasing levels of drug-market violence http://tinyurl.com/ycrvkkc
* this is no surprise in Mexico, where 18,000 have died in three years of war between the government and drug cartels
* which is expanding to once-calm cities http://tinyurl.com/y97vzoy

But the Administration's response is to pour more aid into Mexico's unwinnable war. http://tinyurl.com/yz3hsow

Even "success" leads to failure. Look at what happened when the U.S. made strides in stopping the flow of drugs at the border . . .

* drug gangs began cultivating marijuana in America's national parks and forests
* where they use animal poisons that can pollute mountain streams and groundwater meant for legitimate farmers and ranchers. http://tinyurl.com/yfo2bhn

And cash-strapped states can no longer afford to fight this war . . .

* lack of funds actually led to a decrease in the prison population http://tinyurl.com/ybyuxe2
* 14 more states will consider legalizing medical marijuana or lessening penalties for pot possession this year
* and California is considering a bill to legalize and tax marijuana http://tinyurl.com/yl8fywl

The writing's on the wall. More and more people want this Drug War to end. I urge you take the lead. If Congress decriminalized drugs at the federal level . . .

* drugs would be distributed by legitimate businesses instead of by violent thugs
* which will lead to safer streets and neighborhoods in both the U.S. and Mexico
* and will make it less likely for minors to get access to drugs

Ending the federal War on Drugs will also . . .

* empower each state to decide the best balance of control, treatment, regulation, and taxation for itself
* save tens of billions of dollars
* and restore some of our Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights

END LETTER

You may send your message using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

More questions for Congress

Two weeks ago, we asked you to write Congress about the Constitutionality of the War on Drugs. Some in Congress responded, but none answered our questions.

Even so, we must keep asking such questions. The more we ask, the more nervous Congress will become. Eventually, they will be forced to either answer our questions or admit publicly that they don't care what the Constitution says.

We believe Congress's refusal to answer our questions underscores the need for the Enumerated Powers Act (EPA). We urge you to demand that Congress pass this bill.

Since we last resported on the EPA in September, the House has increased the number of co-sponsors from 48 to 52, and the Senate increased its co-sponsor list from 21 to 22.

You can find House co-sponsors of the EPA here.

And co-sponsors of the Senate version are here.

If any of your House or Senate representatives has co-sponsored the bill, send them your congratulations and urge those who haven't to do so.

In my personal comments, I also asked more questions . . .

"Two weeks ago I asked you about the Constitutionality of the War on Drugs, and you haven't answered my questions. But the issue is larger than drugs. Congress is considering legislation that affects what food people can grow on their own land. Congress is also considering legislation that can force people to purchase health insurance against their will.

Do people not have a natural right to control their own person and property?

Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to regulate commerce between the states and with other nations, but I see no provision that empowers Congress to control my life and property directly. Do you think I'm incorrect? Maybe I am. But if so, how?

If Congress presumes to tell us what to do with our own lives, shouldn't it at least cite where it gets the authority to do so?

The Enumerated Powers Act is not a complicated proposal. If you believe the bills you support and sponsor are Constitutional, EPA won't be a problem. That's because all it requires is for Congress to specify the constitutional authority for the laws they pass.

But the longer you dodge these Constitutional questions, and the longer you avoid sponsoring the Enumerated Powers Act, the more I'll be forced to conclude that you believe most bills you support are unconstitutional."

You can send your message here.

And we encourage you to share this message with friends:http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/more-questions-for-congress

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

Don't read this if you don't care about the Constitution

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/don-t-read-this-if-you-care-about-the-constitution

Quote of the Day: "I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution." -- DownsizeDC.org co-founder Harry Browne (1933-2006)

Subject: Drugs and the Constitution

Our last Drug War Dispatch generated some concerned emails.

You can read our response here.

What we didn't mention in the previous Dispatch was the Constitutional problem of the War on Drugs. That's because . . .

Many people seem not to care what the Constitution requires. Today's message is for those who do care.

Drug control is NOT a Constitutional power of the federal government. At the very most the federal government could, perhaps, ban the importation of drugs, and prohibit their sale across state lines under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8.

But nowhere in the Constitution is Congress empowered to prohibit the sale or possession of any item within state boundaries. The Tenth Amendment dictates that whatever Congress is not empowered to do must be left to the States, or to the people. This means Congress cannot . . .

* forbid the personal possession or use of drugs
* prohibit drug sales within the same state
* intervene in other countries with money or troops to fight undeclared drug wars

This means that drug prohibition laws can only exist at the state level. Imagine what could happen if some states had no prohibition laws, while other states had prohibition laws of differing severity. Competing claims about drug prohibition could be tested, in the real world. As it is . . .

Federal prohibition laws not only prohibit the sale and use of drugs, they also prohibit us from learning what would work best.

The 10th Amendment's Constitutional restrictions on federal power used to be well-known and understood. For instance, those who wanted to prohibit alcohol in the 1910's knew that the Constitution didn't give Congress the power to do this. So they had to pass the 18th Amendment, ratified in 1919.

Alcohol prohibition was a failure, so in 1933 the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

If prohibiting alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment?

It's an important question. To ignore the Constitutional process is to ignore the rule of law. No matter how one feels about drug use, the rule of law, especially as applied to government power, is essential to protecting our lives, freedoms, and property. With this in mind . . .

We want to ask you to do something different today. We've changed the message to Congress for our "Help End the Mexican Civil War" campaign. For today's action item it reads . . .

"You've sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, so could you please answer three questions. 1. Where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to wage a War on Drugs? 2. If alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment? 3. Shouldn't we be allowed to learn what works best by having states with different drug laws, or NO drug laws, in keeping with the 10th Amendment? I would appreciate an honest, thoughtful response."

If members of Congress receive enough of these messages, some will feel compelled to reply. We want to see what form these responses take, and we'd like to compare the names of those who respond with the list of those who have co-sponsored the "Enumerated Powers Act."

Remember, the "Enumerated Powers Act" would require Congress to cite its Constitutional authority for every law it passes. This would be impossible for them to do in the case of most drug prohibition laws, except those provisions that might squeeze through under the Commerce Clause.

If you receive a response could you please forward it to us, so we can publish it on our blog? Please let us know if you want us to omit your name to protect your privacy. Or, you can post the response in the Comments section of this blog post.

You can send your Constitutional questions to Congress here.

Please share this Dispatch with any friends who care about Constitutional requirements.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

Whose Body Is It?

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/whose-body-is-it

We received some negative feedback to our most recent Drug War Dispatch.

Yet, no one would admit that the Drug War is successful. No one claimed the Drug War has lowered drug availablility, drug use, or drug addiction.

Instead, what the critics fear is that ending drug prohibition would lead to more use and addiction.

That might happen. It's also possible that drug use would . . .

• Spike briefly but then fall back to historical levels
• Decrease

After all, drugs will be in the pharmacy and off the streets and school grounds. Pushers won't be giving out free samples to hook people.

Overall, we believe any possible increase in self-harm (addiction) will be more than offset by the reduction of harm to the innocent. And there will be more resources to treat addicts who seek help.

In any case, this concern boils down to fearing the consequences of individual freedom.

If we feared individual freedom, DownsizeDC.org might as well close shop.

Individuals should be responsible for their actions. If their actions cause harm, or violate the rights of others, they should be held to account in civil or criminal courts. If their self-harm, such as addiction, leads them to commit crimes, acts of negligence, or to break contracts, they should likewise be held accountable.

If there are public-nuisance problems associated with drug use or other activities, they could be addressed at the state or local levels.

But when government tries to prevent negative outcomes by restricting freedom, what we get is more negative outcomes, not fewer. The Drug War epitomizes this reality.

The purpose of our campaigns is to leave each individual with more resources, more discretion, and more control over his or her life. We believe greater individual freedom will lead not only to greater human progress, but is inherently more just.

For instance, we believe it is unjust for the government to deny a person the right to make decisions regarding his or her own health. This includes the choice of the medical professionals he or she chooses, the types of treatments and medications he or she chooses, and the prices he or she is willing to pay.

It would be unjust for the government to prohibit a certain treatment you want, or to force you to pay for an insurance plan you don't want. This is why we demand consumer-controlled health care.

Your body belongs to you. It doesn't belong to your doctor, or an insurance company, or the government.

Even if you make bad decisions with it, your body still belongs to you.

Even if lots of people make bad decisions, such as taking up smoking, their bodies belong to themselves. They don't "owe" the government longer life or greater productivity from not smoking.

Likewise, it is not the government's business to prohibit the food you want to eat, the beverages you choose to drink, or what drugs you might want to take. This is important . . .

• Some now-illegal drugs, and not just marijuana, may provide relief for pain or psychiatric disorders.
• Since the drugs are illegal NO ONE can benefit from these potential uses
• And there is no legal recourse for the victims of tainted, impure, black-market doses

If the drugs were legal, doctors, pharmacists and consenting patients would be free to experiment with them in a controlled way. Respected businesses would develop consistent batches, and fewer people (the very people drug prohibition claims to help!) would be harmed by impure, black-market substances.

There simply is NO line that can be drawn between health freedom and drug freedom. The federal government has no authority over our bodies. We should be more concerned about those who are victimized by the loss of freedom than with those who choose to abuse themselves.

Is Drug Prohibition Worth It?

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/is-drug-prohibition-worth-it

Quote of the Day: "Those who suffer from the abuse of drugs have themselves to blame for it. This does not mean that society is absolved from active concern for their plight. It does mean that their plight is subordinate to the plight of those citizens who do not experiment with drugs, but whose life, liberty, and property are substantially affected by the illegalization of the drugs." -- William F. Buckley

Subject: Is Drug Prohibition Worth It?

There have been positive signs that America is reconsidering some aspects of drug prohibition.

• In February, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Administration would stop medical marijuana raids in states where it's legal
• In May, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case arguing that California's medical marijuana law was in conflict with federal law
• The Obama Administration did not object when Mexico liberalized its drug possession law last month

But as America takes baby steps toward Drug War reform, statesmen south of the border are suggesting something bolder.

• Former Mexican President Vicente Fox is proposing an end to prohibition
• Three other Latin American ex-Presidents have called on the nations of the hemisphere to rethink prohibition

This week, the Global Public Policy Forum on the U.S. War on Drugs was held on the front lines of the Drug War, in the border cities of El Paso and Juarez. The Forum was organized by the University of Texas-El Paso, but the idea originated with the El Paso City Council. The Council also unanimously called for "an honest open national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics" (although that resolution was vetoed by the mayor under the threat of losing federal funds).

Regrettably, Obama's "Border Czar" and "Drug Czar" chose not to attend.

But we agree with the El Paso City Council.

• Drug prohibition breeds corruption. 80 law enforcement officials have been convicted of drug-related corruption on the U.S.-Mexico border since 2006.
• Drug probition breeds violence, endangering the innocent. Violence related to drug trafficking is spreading to new areas such as British Columbia
• Drug prohibition is killing U.S. soliders in Afghanistan. The Taliban is being funded by drug profits, and the war is now less about ideology and more about drug profits

Indeed, prohibition can cause the retail price of drugs to be as much as 25 times higher than the production costs. Even if 75% of drug shipments were intercepted, the trade would still be profitable for drug lords.

Today, only a fraction of drug shipments are intercepted. This means the only way to "win" the War on Drugs is to lose the Bill of Rights and our way of life by substantially increasing arbitrary searches and seizures at home, and employing a much larger military as a narcotics police force across the globe.

In order to accomplish . . . what, exactly?

• Illicit drug-related deaths are one-fifth the rate of alcohol deaths and less than one-twenty-fiftth of tobacco-related deaths
• Three-fourths of all illicit drug use is marijuana use, and marijuana accounts for 0% of the deaths
• Most of the other illicit drug use is the recreational use of legal prescription drugs
• Just 0.7% of the population over 12 used cocaine in the past month, and 0.4% used hallucinogens. One in a thousand used heroin.
• According LEAP, in 2006 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs, the same as in 1970 when the War on Drugs began, and the same as in 1914 when the first federal drug laws were passed.

Drug prohibition costs hundreds of billions in both direct costs and opportunity costs such as the lost wages of the imprisoned. It endangers the lives of innocents caught in turf wars. It promotes chaos and instability in much of the world -- and all of this in a futile attempt to save a tiny fraction of the population from themselves.

But if we lifted the prohibition on drugs . . .

• Drug prices would fall to a fraction of what they are now, meaning hopeless addicts would be less likely to rob you to pay for their fix
• The Taliban would lose their revenue stream
• We would have safer streets in America and much of the world

Please tell Congress to end the chaos in Mexico, in Afghanistan, and on our streets. Tell them to end drug prohibition. In your personal comments, explain how prohibition has created such huge profit margins that the government can't stop the flow no matter how hard it tries. You can send your comments here.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

Get Your Meth, Imported Assault Weapons, and Whores Here!

I know this is last month's news, but it's something I intended to comment on but became busy with other things and forgot about.

How freaking stupid can prosecutors be if they want the Craig's List Erotic Services section removed?

It seems to me they'd want people who sell illegal stuff to openly and brazenly advertise.

I don't frequent prostitutes, but if I did, I would rely on a word-of-mouth network. I would have assumed that every last erotic service ad on Craig's List was a sting operation. Indeed, I would have thought that the sex workers themselves would be stupid for posting, because all police would need to do is answer these ads and make the arrests. I'd have avoided that section like the plague.

Do people sell illegal weapons or drugs on Craig's List, or anywhere else online? Wouldn't they be certain that federal or local law enforcement would quickly be on to them?

The more black-market businesses publicly advertise, the easier it is for police and prosecution; the job is half-done. By suppressing this speech, governments are only making it harder on themselves to trace and prevent this activity.

Craig's List was a gift to law enforcement, and it makes absolutely no sense why people should be angry at Craig's List for allowing sex workers who are stupid enough to advertise and risk arrest from doing so. It's not Craig's List's fault that the police didn't take advantage.

It suggests to me that law enforcement does not have any intention of making any serious inroads on prostitution or any other black-market activity. Its dual purpose is rather to keep arrest and incarceration rates high enough to appear effective, yet also keep the "crime" rate high enough to justify bigger budgets.

Laws against vice, as opposed to violent crimes against person and property, are make-work jobs programs for the government. More police, prison guards, etc. The moral well-being of you and I has nothing to do with it.

In Defense of the Steroid Era

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In May, 1996, Favre checked himself into the NFL's substance abuse rehabilitation program for an addiction to the painkiller Vicodin. You don't get addicted to Vicodin from prescribed amounts. Undoubtedly, Favre broke the law. . . .

In Favre's case, he was given credit for his competitive spirit and trying to help his team win, not because he wanted to throw more touchdown passes, win the MVP Award, and get a huge contract.

But baseball players who used steroids are never given credit for the fact that missing fewer games and hitting more home runs would actually help the team win ball games. They have no "competitive spirit," they're just greedy.

A-Rod's the victim

It looks like the revelation of Alex Rodriguez's positive steroid test six years ago may have violated both confidentiality agreements and the Fourth Amendment. I would love it if the investigation of this leak ultimately results in Barry Bonds's exoneration.

I can understand - not condone, but understand - cops going a little overboard on the Fourth Amendment in obsessive pursuit of a serial killer or some such person. But you can't ascribe good intentions to investigators in the BALCO and Bonds cases. Steroid abusers harm nobody but themselves. One may object that they harm the integrity of Major League Baseball. But that's MLB's business, not the government's, and MLB didn't take action against steroids until a few years ago.

An emailer to ESPN this afternoon says that A-Rod isn't sorry for having used illegal substances, he's only sorry he got "caught." But that's the thing: he didn't get caught; it's more accurate to say he was exposed through illegal means. Confident now that he would never test positive for steroids, and also confident now his positive test result from years ago has been destroyed or remains confidential, he could lie and tell Katie Couric that he's never taken steroids. Sure, it's a lie, but it's a lie about something that was nobody else's business.

Imagine Joe Blow is asked on 60 Minutes whether he ever had an affair. He says no. Then his psychiatrist comes forward to say that Joe Blow did have an affair, after which Mr. Blow admits that, yes, indeed he had and is very sorry.

It does no good to accuse him of only being sorry the affair was discovered. It is more likely true that he was sorry that he had it in the first place, which is part of the reason he didn't want it discovered: it wouldn't do any good for anybody, including himself. The real crime in this case is not the adultery, and not lying about it. It is, rather, the contractual breach of confidentiality on the part of the psychiatrist.

Likewise, that A-Rod used steroids should come as, at most, a mild surprise. The real scandal is not his behavior, but the leak that exposed it.

I don't condone steroid use. Because A-Rod was presumed "clean" and seemed destined to break the all-time home run record, maybe karma caught up to him. But if that's the case, karma wil also eventually catch up to the leakers and prosecutors in this unethical and unconstitutional war on steroids.

No Country For Old Men

I recently saw the Coen Brothers film No Country For Old Men. The setting is West Texas, circa 1980. The "old men" in question are people like Tommy Lee Jones's character, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell. Jones the actor is in his early 60's, and so presumably is the character. Bell came from a family of sheriffs, and had been a sheriff himself since the age of 25.

Bell recalls that in the older days several sheriffs in nearby counties never even carried a gun. But now (i.e., 1980), the illegal drug trade brought with it big money, gang shoot-outs, and roving hitmen. This level of evil, this disruption of a once quiet and peaceful life, is too big to overcome and too discouraging for old men.

And what, again, is the cause of this new kind of evil? The fact that drugs were illegal. That's not to say other cultural changes didn't take place that could cause disillusionment, and the villain is an unstoppable force for evil who may have arrived in many different contexts and situations. Nevertheless, illegal drugs was the occasion for this lawlessness and this evil, and simply wouldn't have taken place if drugs were legal.

Trans-fascism, the top 5, and the middle-brow

This was apparently a repeat episode, but I just saw it. The King of the Hill episode that ran tonight on Fox, in which Hank battles Arlen City Hall when it bans trans-fats, deserves an award for the promotion of individual freedom on television. It shows the snobbery of "cosmopolitan" health fascists, the hypocrisy on the City Council, the corruption of police, the ignorance of those who trust the government, the unintended consequences of the law (even people who obey it still get fat), and the unintended consequences of breaking even an unjust law; if you are successful in breaking the law for principled reasons, you'll be supplanted by unscrupulous people who will break the law only for profit.

Apparently, the name of the episode is "Trans-fascism," and it's from season 12, episode 11. When King of the Hill debuted, I thought it was solid but thought that, based on the setting, it couldn't run for more than 1 1/2 seasons. And it's true that I haven't watched it very often. But, like South Park, every time I do watch, I am impressed.

A lot of the reason I don't watch either show very often is because I don't think it's good to get into the habit of watching a lot of tv shows on a regular basis. The one show I'm most interested in watching when it debuts is Lost, and even with Lost I rarely watch the repeats. I'd rather do other things. But even though I try to avoid "appointment viewing," I still have my favorites. And I'd have to say that The Simpsons is my #1 favorite show of all time, based on the strength of Seasons 3-6. But now in its 19th season, I wouldn't think of setting aside time for it. There are, however, five shows I would at least think about setting aside time for.

1. Lost: It doesn't matter so much how "good" it is anymore, I just want to find out what's going on, and what's going to happen next.
2. 30 Rock: Initially, I was disappointed because I thought it was going to be to live sketch comedy shows what Larry Sanders was to late night talk shows. It isn't, but what it sacrifices in "realism" it makes up for in laughs.
3. NCIS: This is a "crime drama" and the plots are about murders and other crimes, but the characters and dialog provide first-rate comedy. I heard a rumor that one of the regulars was going to be killed off at the end of this season and that's depressing; on the other hand the hints provided in episodes so far suggests that it is a minor character, not one of the "team" that provides the show its comic genius.
4. Family Guy: For me (and for most viewers, I'm guessing) this show works because of Brian, Stewie, the flashbacks, and the celebrity satirizations. Otherwise, it's just a vulgar version of The Simpsons with teenage kids. I still kind of wish it aired late-night instead of prime time, but man, when it's funny, nothing's funnier.
5. Scrubs: Pre-dates both House and Grey's Anatomy, and has mocked both shows for stealing characters and situations. I'd rather watch a sit-com about young doctors than a drama about young doctors, thank you very much. Although I do like House. Grey's Anatomy is nothing but late-night Skinemax with a better script and without the nudity. Scrubs, on the other hand, is a live-action cartoon set in a hospital.

All five of my favorite shows are solidly middle-brow.

What do I mean by middle-brow? That depends on whether you know what high-brow and low-brow means. The following definition-by-example should be clear, and you don't even have to pay for basic cable to understand it. Here it is: if you have no money, but you do have a tv and nothing else to do, what will you watch? If you're:

- High-brow, you watch Great Performances on PBS
- Middle-brow, you watch House
- Low-brow, you watch The Bachelor

Is it alright to think about race?

The USA's murder rate is 2 or 3 times that of most other developed nations we would prefer to compare ourselves to. Here's the thing: the nations with higher murder rates seem to have two or three of the following features: ethnic diversity, heavy drug trafficking, and government corruption.

Race-based analysis can destroy one's standing and reputation, but I am curious how White America compares in these statistical categories to whites in other majority-white nations, and how non-whites (and/or non-Judeo-Christians) fare in those nations. Are the most homogeneous nations the most crime-free? Are there similar disparities between whites and non-whites in education and income in other countries as in the United States? What about drug laws and imprisonment rates? Is the fact that the U.S. is more ethnically and racially diverse causing the statistics to lag behind? For instance, is white America's life expectancy, infant morality, etc. as good as any, and are non-whites, with short life expectancies, dragging the average down?

One reason to ask such questions is to answer what role guns play in American society. Does high gun ownership and high gun-related deaths tell the whole story, or are not most of those gun deaths drug- and gang-related, involving a tiny segment of the population? If white crime rates and white gun deaths are already low, how will gun control make anyone safer? And don't the stiff drug penalties, reflected in our high prison population (particularly, high non-white prison population), make the drug trade that much more high-risk and lethal?

The purpose is not to "blame minorities," but to get a more realistic assessment in differences in quality of life in America. As a nation becomes increasingly diverse, people with values and lifestyles different from the established white norm will probably not perform as well in the statistical measure that nation values. Some of this will be inevitable, but some policies, such as the War on Drugs, only make things worse for non-whites.

Pleading the Tenth

Has anyone ever refused to answer a question from a federal inquisitor on Tenth Amendment grounds? I don't know, but I'd love to hear it from Roger Clemens when he testifies at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee next month:

"Mr. Chairman, I have read the Constitution and it does not grant you authority to ask the question or hold this hearing on my alleged steroid use. Therefore, I will exercise my rights as an American citizen under the Tenth Amendment, and my natural rights as a human being, and refuse to answer it.

"But let me clarify one thing: I do see under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations. I will assume this includes the selling of drugs across state lines. I do not believe any drug should be regulated by any government, but I respect the legitimacy of such legislation under the Constitution. I will thereofre affirm that I do not know how steroids, or any other illegal performance enhancer, is produced or distributed. I have no knowledge of drug trafficking or drug smuggling at all, and even if I knew someone who dealt drugs, I never saw him or her transport drugs across state lines. To the extent a Congressional hearing on steroids is Constitutionally legitimate, I do not have any information to help you. To the extent this hearing is illegitimate, I refuse to cooperate.

"My non-cooperation does not mean that I endorse performance-enhancing drugs in baseball or anywhere else. Major League Baseball is a private organization, and has the right to ban steroids among its players, and suspend or fine those who are caught. I see the merit in this, because young men shouldn't be caught having to choose between a huge paycheck today and poor health tomorrow. Steroids could also disrupt the competitive balance of the game, if it becomes dominated by steroid-induced strikeout pitchers and power hitters who are intentionally-walked all the time. Much of the excitement of baseball as we know it today - base-running and chasing balls in the field, would disappear.

"So I agree that Baseball should ban steroids, and Baseball has banned steroids, and is taking measures to upgrade its enforcement. It does not need the help of this committee. Tens of billions of dollars have been squandered on waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq, yet you insist on holding a hearing on a problem that the private sector is taking care of by itself.

"The Constitution you have sworn your allegiance to gives the Congress few and specific powers. Prohibiting individual drug use is not one of them. This is clearly left to the states and to "the people," as the Tenth Amendment says. If steroid possession or use should be illegal, the states should have laws and enforce them. But better yet, if drugs are so bad, the private sector could provide drugs tests, and indeed much of the private sector, including baseball, already does. But we do not need a federal police force and federal prisons warehousing thousands of non-violent drug dealers and drug users. The whole War on Drugs, of which the War on Steroids is a part, is a Constitutional travesty. I will not defend steroid-dealers or any other kind of drug-dealer, but if they are bad, you members of this Committee are much worse. For they are out to make a buck from willing customers, whereas you people are out to take away the freedom of individuals to make decisions for themselves, without their consent.

"Most of this committee is Democrat, and I bet most of you Democrats and maybe a couple of Republicans here are [use hand gesture to signify quotation marks] "pro-choice." If it is a Constitutional right for a woman to pay a doctor to kill a human life inside a woman's womb, why do individuals not also have a Constitutional right to take any substance they please, including steroids or some mind-altering drug?

"The federal republic was formed to provide an internal free-trade zone and a common foreign policy for the states. In few cases, like counterfeiting or treason, does the federal government have the authority to arrest and try individuals. Steroid use may be dangerous. Steroid use may be morally wrong. But steroid use is none of your business.

"I do not recognize the legitimacy of this committee hearing. I will now leave."