Prohibition was disaster with alcohol, still a disaster with other drugs

By David McElroy · November 9, 2011

Well-meaning moralists campaigned for years to pass a constitutional amendment banning alcohol in this country starting in 1920. As a result, the next 13 years were bloody time when criminal elements took over supplying alcohol and many people were killed — by rival gangs, by police enforcement efforts and from drinking poisonous homemade booze.

As crazy as this whole thing sounds to us today, some people still don’t understand that we’re doing the same thing today — and have been for decades — as the federal government fights the never-ending “war on (some) drugs.” It’s time to quite committing a slow version of national suicide. We need to end drug prohibition.

When I discovered individual liberty, the toughest issue for me to deal with was illegal drugs. My own lifestyle is very conservative. I don’t use any kind of recreational drugs, either the legal kinds or the illegal kinds. When I was a teen-ager, I looked around at the problems that I saw alcohol causing for many people and I decided that the risks weren’t worth the dubious benefits, so I never even started. The more life I live, the more I’m certain it’s the smartest decision. However, I’m equally certain that it’s not my business — and not the government’s business — to decide which recreational drugs you use, even if I would prefer you leave them alone.

For the first time, more Americans favor legalizing marijuana than favor keeping it illegal, according to a new Gallup poll. If you look at the breakdown of subgroups in the poll, you’ll see that legalization is inevitable. The group favoring making it legal the most is younger people. The group favoring keeping it illegal are old folks. Guess who are dying out more rapidly?

I’m not going to argue that I think it’s smart to smoke weed or to use other recreational drugs. I’m just arguing that it’s not moral for me to make that decision for other people and that history has proven over and over that people are going to use the drugs they want, whether they’re legal or not. Trying to stamp them out simply turns the business over to criminals and drives up prices, which just gives the criminals more of an incentive to kill each other to take over territories. For some reason, we don’t hear about this kind of violence between rival beer distributors.

And if you’re one of the many conservatives who favor legal alcohol, but favor keeping other drugs illegal, you’re being hypocritical and irrational. What you don’t realize is that alcohol causes more problems for society than heroin or crack. It’s always going to be that way.

I detest what people do to themselves when they abuse drugs or even when they put themselves on a path of tempting themselves with moderate use of them. I think it’s one of the worst decision that people in our society make. But I’m equally sure that I don’t have the right to force you to make the same decision I do (as long as you don’t infringe on my rights or put me into danger by your actions).

Even though I detest alcohol and marijuana and heroin and crack and all the rest, I’m among the growing number of people who want to give people individual freedom on this choice. Even if you hate these drugs as much as I do, I invite you to join me in that — both for moral reasons and for pragmatic reasons.

Note: If you’d like to learn about the perspective of current and former law enforcement officers who are now in favor of legalization, please take a look at the website of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. If you’re against drug legalization, you might be very interested in what they have to say.

Share on Social Networks

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

For four years, Donald Trump’s supporters screamed that everything that went wrong was the fault of Joe Biden. They were sometimes right and they were sometimes delusional. (Anybody who knows me understands that I can’t stand Biden any more than I can stand Trump, just for different reasons.) But for two months, Trump has rampaged through U.S. political life — vandalizing pretty much everything in sight — and the vast majority of his supporters are silent at best. Many watch as he blows up the world economy and they make excuses for him. They’re in absolute denial, even about things that Trump is doing very intentionally. Anybody who understands economics and history knows that tariffs are a terrible idea from a pragmatic point of view. Anybody who values individual freedom knows that tariffs are massive taxes on individuals — and they’re a tool of political control over the ability of people to trade freely. Trump is the antithesis of everything which political conservatives stood for just a few years ago. It’s far past time for people who claim to be conservatives to reclaim the principles and values which they used to claim — and stop this mad man before he can accelerate the day when we experience economic and social collapse. Open your eyes to reality and reject this lying narcissist.

Related Posts