Recently I posed the idea to legalize drugs to a friend. He said that would be a horrible message to send to the public. I then asked him, what do you want from government? He said, well we should go back to what the country was founded upon. Same rules, same guidelines, and principles. I pointed out that the constitution never gave the government authority to wage a War on Drugs.
What I did not remind my friend was that the 18th Amendment of our Constitution enacted the prohibition of alcohol. In fact, the Amendment called for a ban on the production, transport, and sale of intoxicating liquors illegal, though it did not outlaw the actual consumption of alcohol. By January 17, 1920, Prohibition officially began, one year after the amendment was ratified. The unique aspect of the 18th Amendment is that it is the only Amendment to be overturned. The 21st Amendment overturned the 18th in 1933 under the Franklin Roosevelt administration who campaigned for repeal amidst unease caused by prohibition for numerous reasons.
These reasons as I said stem from a variety of factors, but one notably is called pushback. We see it resulting from foreign policy action, government regulation, licensing, price controls, and as we will see here with substance control. Civil leaders as we saw in the 1920s felt the need to control human action because they along with interest groups including temperance movement who for decades insisted that a ban on the sale of alcohol would ameliorate poverty and other societal issues. Similarly, starting in 1906, the Anti-Saloon League (ASL) began leading a campaign to ban the sale of alcohol at the state level. They led speeches, advertisements, and public demonstrations, claiming that banning the sale of alcohol would get rid of poverty and social issues, such as immoral behavior and violence.
Having concern for morality is not the problem. It is a question of who wears the hat. Families, churches, and other similar private organizations fit the mold to manage these matters. The reason for the fiasco we saw during alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and currently with drug prohibition is that the civil government attempts to manage morality which it doesn’t exist for. Back to pushback. By making a substance illegal, its price rises significantly. Consequently, there’s incentive for a black market, which in the 1920s led to the explosion of organized crime in urban areas just as we have heavy gang activity in our inner cities today related to drug activity. Another similarity, in both instances crime bosses paid law enforcement to look the other way amidst boot legging just as cops today are paid turn a blind eye as drug deals are being made.
Safety is also an issue. Due to restrictions on production, various types of alcohol were made in people’s homes, including bathtubs. This led to secrecy and people trying to find discrete methods to hide their activity from law enforcement leaving them open to potential searches. Since prohibition was lifted, the production of moonshine and other types of alcohol became widespread, and markets have played a heavy role monitoring the safety and production of the various substances. Now, during drug prohibition people also attempt to produce substances such as crystal meth out of their homes thus creating an uncomfortable environment for people knowing that their neighbors are producing an illicit substance which makes them a potential target for cop raids.
Treatment is also a concern. Since prohibition has been lifted there has been a wide assortment of treatment options to treat alcoholism, most notably Alcoholics Anonymous amongst others. However, prior to prohibition being lifted, though consumption was not outlawed, the sale and production was thus creating a difficult environment to obtain help. If someone had a problem, their usage could easily be traced to an illegal source.
Currently, while there certainly are drug rehabilitation centers, getting help can still be problematic for reasons stated under alcohol prohibition. If a person is caught possessing and doing drugs, they are indeed breaking a law(s) thus making them a criminal though there is no victim. This inhibits their ability to receive help especially considering that in some cases our system treats drug offenders more harshly than sex offenders which is outrageous because there is direct harm resulting from a sex offense which is known to carry years of trauma.
I mention the criminal element arising from illegality thus leading to the black market. The Mafia made a killing off boot legging in the 1920s and now an intertwining of gangs in the United States and below our Southern Border make a fortune from the drug business. This is one of the main reasons for poor performing schools in the inner cities, corrupt police officers and other elected officials, the mass exodus of people leaving the cities and migrating into suburban areas, and enticements given to businesses to stay in the cities. My heart goes out to people living in the inner cities who fear for their lives that a shooting will not occur in their streets and pray that their son or daughter will not join a gang. Then there are the constant civil rights violations coming from no-knock raids that have resulted in death and unjust asset forfeiture prior to conviction only to line the pockets of civil leaders.
Back to my friend’s original concern about messages coming from our government, my concern is the reality our government subjects us to live under.
In His Image 