Three years ago, in a citizen’s initiation approved by 3/4 of voters, Oregon decriminalized the possession of small amounts of illicit drugs. Last month, the Oregon governor signed into law a measure that undid what the people of Oregon had decided.
The reason for this change in direction was that there were severe problems that arose with decriminalization. Two of the biggest problems were (1) Drug addiction and deaths from drug overdoses had soared; and (2) drug addicts suffered from homelessness and were congregated in public parks and other public areas; some of them were committing acts of violence.
When I read about what the Oregon legislature and governor had done, my initial reaction was: How in the world does the government undo what the citizenry has approved? In other words, who’s in charge here — the citizenry or public officials? Why don’t the citizenry have the final word on drug laws? If the government thinks the citizenry have acted inappropriately, why shouldn’t public officials be required to convinced the citizens to undo what they have done with another citizens’ initiative? Why does the government wield veto power over a citizen’s initiative?
More fundamentally, the problems that Oregon is experiencing are rooted not in the measure that Oregon voters approved by rather by the actions of government.
Consider, for example, the homelessness problem — that is, the fact that all those drug addicts are living in public parks and other public areas taking their drugs. What people are loathe to acknowledge, not only in Oregon but many other states, is that homelessness is a direct consequence of government interventionism, not drug addiction.
I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s in the poorest city of the United States — Laredo, Texas. There were many people who lived in shacks with outhouses. Yet, there was never a homelessness problem. Everyone had a place to live, even if it wasn’t very attractive.
Why? Because at that time Laredo didn’t have zoning. Oregon, on the other hand, has zoning laws. It is zoning laws that cause homelessness.
When government officials enact measures like zoning in an attempt to protect homeowners’ property values, it never occurs to them that there are going to be adverse consequences of their economic interventionism. But homelessness is the adverse consequence of zoning.
If zoning was repealed, people could open up mobile-home parks. They could build low-cost housing. Drug addicts could move into low-cost homes designed to house multiple people. They could even live in shacks with outhouses until they could get their feet on the ground.
The repeal of zoning wouldn’t prevent private subdivisions from continuing to restrict low-cost housing within the development. It would simply prohibit non-zoned areas from doing the same. If people don’t want to live next door to a mobile-home park, they can either buy the adjoining property or move to a private subdivision.
Also, consider minimum-wage laws. Drug addicts are not valued in the marketplace at $15 an hour. But if they were free to offer their labor at $5 or $3 per hour, there is a better chance that employers, operating out of self-interest, would be willing to take a chance on them. A law that purports to help the “poor, needy, and disadvantaged” operates to lock out of the labor market people who are barely surviving but who would like nothing better than to re-enter the mainstream of life with a job.
Drug overdoses? In many cases, it’s not overdoses that kill people. Instead, it’s the consumption of corrupted drugs that kill people. The authorities simply label the death as one involving an “overdose.”
Those corrupted drugs come from a black market. Keep in mind that the possession and sale of illicit drugs is still a felony under federal law in Oregon. Even though federal officials have implemented an informal policy of not enforcing federal drug laws in states where drugs have been legalized, there is still no possibility that reputable businesses like pharmacies are going to get involved in the sale of drugs. That’s because they would be committing a felony under federal law, a felony that the feds could enforce whenever they want.
Thus, the sale of drugs in Oregon continues to operate in a semi-black market, one in which the sellers are not as prominent and reputable as well-established pharmacies and pharmaceuticals that would be selling high-quality drugs to addicts, ones that wouldn’t cause deaths from corrupted drugs.
What does re-criminalization of drugs accomplish? It certainly doesn’t get rid of the drug problem. It just gets rid of the drug addict by removing him from the public park and transferring him to a public jail. That isn’t much of a longterm solution and will only re-lead to harsher measures that, once again, remove drug addicts entirely from society by placing them permanently in state or federal penitentiaries.
The real issue is: Why are so many Americans addicted to mind-altering substances? My hunch is that it’s because they find that living in a serfdom society that has been falsely billed as “freedom” is one that they find unattractive, especially when both federal and state officials continue to tighten the screws on everyone in society, including through drug laws. In other words, it’s the same reason why so many people, especially young people, are increasingly checking out of life early through suicide.
Seconal, a popular barbiturate among 1950s American housewives. Image licensed under Creative Commons.
Throughout history, people have ingested mind-altering substances. But simply because there is a social problem with drug addiction doesn’t mean that the government should be addressing it. Shouldn’t we have learned that with alcohol Prohibition? In the 1950s, countless housewives were addicted to barbiturates. Does that mean that they should have been prosecuted and jailed? Of course not. The problem of drug addiction belongs in private rehabilitation centers, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, not in the state’s criminal-justice system.
Finally, we should always keep in mind the moral argument against drug laws: In a genuinely free society, people have the right to possess, distribute, and ingest whatever they want, no matter how deadly, destructive, and dangerous. That includes alcohol, tobacco, fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and everything else. The sooner the American people rediscover this fundamental feature of liberty, the sooner we will restore a free and healthy society to our land.
Full story here Are you the author?
Tags: Featured,Hornberger's Blog,newsletter
