the war on drugs is a wa...id gordon - mises daily
TRANSCRIPT
7/27/2019 The War on Drugs is a Wa...Id Gordon - Mises Daily
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-war-on-drugs-is-a-waid-gordon-mises-daily 1/3
The W ar on Drugs Is a War on Freedom
Mises Daily: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 by David Gordon (http://mises.org/daily/author/64/David-Gordon)
(https://mises.org/store/War-on-Drugs-Is-a-War-on-Freedom-The-P10874.aspx)
[ The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom (https://mises.org/store/W ar-on-Drugs-Is-a-War-on-Freedom-
The-P10874.aspx) • By Laurence M. V ance • V ance Publications, 2012 • X vi + 103 pages]
The efforts, spurred by Mayor Bloomberg, to ban large cans
of drinks deemed too sugary have been much in the news
lately; and a peculiar point in the mayor's defense of this
measure is highly relevant to Laurence Vance's excellent
book. What struck me as odd in the mayor's comments was
that he confined his defense to pointing out the dangers to
health posed by the drinks he wished to ban, along with
the attendant monetary costs that illnesses that resulted
from consuming these drinks might impose.
It never seemed to occur to Mayor Bloomberg that whetheran individual decides to consume a harmful substance ought
not to come under governmental supervision. The decision
is the person's alone to make. What was odd about the
mayor's comments was not so much that he rejected this
view, but rather that he did not deem it worthy of
mention. State paternalism for him required no defense.
As Vance reminds us, it is not only libertarians who reject paternalism. To the contrary, the view that
the state can address only acts directed against others, not ones that affect immediately just an
individual himself, is integral to the classical-liberal tradition. It received its canonical statement from
John Stuart Mill:
The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way,
so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to attain it.
Each is the guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are
greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by
compelling each to live as seems good to the rest. (p. 13, quoting Mill)
Mises applied Mill's principle to the subject of Vance's book, drug regulation, in characteristically
incisive fashion. To allow regulation of dangerous drugs opens the door to attacks on freedom of
speech and of the press:
Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is
admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own
foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments.… And why
limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only?
Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily
evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad
paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? (p. 24, quoting Mises(http://mises.org/humanaction/chap27sec6.asp) )
For Vance, the fundamental issue in drug regulation is individual rights. He does not at all deny that
these drugs can cause great harm; but the issue of regulation is not to be settled by balancing the
benefits and harms of open access to drugs against the benefits and harms of their regulation or
prohibition.
7/27/2019 The War on Drugs is a Wa...Id Gordon - Mises Daily
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-war-on-drugs-is-a-waid-gordon-mises-daily 2/3
Practical and utilitarian arguments against the drug war are important, but not as important as
the moral argument for the freedom to use or abuse drugs for freedom's sake. The moral case
for drug freedom is simply the case for freedom. Freedom to use one's property as one sees
fit. Freedom to enjoy the fruits of one's labor in whatever way one deems appropriate.
Freedom to use one's body in the manner of one's choosing. Freedom to follow one's own
moral code. Freedom from being taxed to fund government tyranny. Freedom from
government intrusion into one's personal life. Freedom to be left alone. (pp. 12–13)
This passage illustrates Vance's force and eloquence, often based, as here, on the repetition of a keyphrase.
If consequences are for Vance not the most important consideration in morality, they nevertheless
matter. (By the way, it's a common misconception that supporters of a rights-based morality ignore
consequences and that for them these carry no moral weight. To the contrary, almost all supporters of
moral rights think that consequences are also morally important. I think that Vance ought not to have
contrasted "moral" with "practical and utilitarian" considerations. Both rights and consequences are parts
of morality.) Much of the book consists of a concise yet comprehensive account of the bad effects of
drug regulation. The war on drugs has led to the highest prison population of any country in the world.
The United States leads the world in the incarceration rate and in the total prison population.
… Almost twenty percent of the state prison population are incarcerated because of drug
charges. Almost half of the federal prison population are incarcerated because of drug charges.
There are almost 350,000 Americans in state or federal prison at this moment [November 2011]
because of drug charges. (p. 71)
The drug war has had manifold invidious effects on civil liberties.
The war on drugs has destroyed financial privacy. Deposit more than $10,000 in a bank account
and you are a suspected drug trafficker.… The war on drugs has provided the rationale for
militarizing local police departments.… The war on drugs has resulted in outrageous behavior
by police in their quest to arrest drug dealers.… The war on drugs has eviscerated the Fourth
Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. (pp. 57–8)
In its deleterious effects on freedom, the drug war recalls the worst excesses of Prohibition. For these,
the short contemporary account of the revisionist historian Harry Elmer Barnes, Prohibition Versus
Civilization: Analyzing the Dry Psychosis (Viking Press, 1932) is well worth seeking out and reading.
These immense costs have not brought with them extensive good results. To the contrary, the drug war
has been a manifest failure. "In spite of decades of prohibition laws, threats of fines and/or
imprisonments, and massive propaganda campaigns, drugs are available and affordable" (p. 26).
Vance, it is apparent, has launched a remarkable war of his own, conducted with superb generalship,
against the drug war; and one of the arguments in his campaign strikes me as an especially effective
one. The harms of tobacco and alcohol vastly exceed the ill effects of dangerous drugs, yet there is no
call to ban them. Prohibition is recognized by nearly everyone as a failure, not to be repeated. If this
is so, how can one justify banning less dangerous substances?
Alcohol abuse and heavy tobacco use are two of the leading causes of death in the United
States. It seems rather ludicrous to advocate the outlawing of drugs and not the outlawing of
alcohol and tobacco. (p. 11)
Vance writes from a viewpoint that will surprise many readers. He himself does not condone the use of
dangerous drugs. To the contrary, he is a Christian and a Bible scholar of considerable note and he
regards their use as sinful. "As an adherent to the ethical principles of the New Testament , I regard
drug abuse to be a vice, a sin, and an evil that Christians should avoid even as they avoid supporting
the government's war on drugs" (p. 79).
7/27/2019 The War on Drugs is a Wa...Id Gordon - Mises Daily
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-war-on-drugs-is-a-waid-gordon-mises-daily 3/3
(http://mises.org/store/Product.aspx?ProductId=10874)
If Vance takes this view of drug use, why is he so adamant that people have the right to consume
these drugs? His answer will be of interest to all students of moral theology. He holds that Christians
can with perfect consistency uphold the distinction between vices and crimes, with only the latter an
appropriate area for forcible suppression.
No Christian would be in favor of criminalizing all sins. Not
when the Bible says that "the thought of foolishness is sin"
(Proverbs 24:9). Why, then, are some Christians so quick to
applaud making some sins criminal just because the state
happens to select them and not others? (p. 84)
Vance's admirable remarks on this topic will I suspect be of great
interest even to those who do not share his faith.
The W ar on Drugs Is a War on Freedom is an outstanding
contribution to the contemporary battle for liberty. It has the
potential to do great good, and Vance deserves high praise for his
magnificent work.
Comment on this article.
David Gordon covers new books in economics, politics, philosophy, and law for T he Mises Rev iew (http://mises.org/periodical.aspx?Id=2) , the quarterly review of literature in the social sciences, published since
1995 by the Mises Institute. He is author of T he E ssential Rothbard (http://mises.org/store/Essential-Rothbard-The-
P336C0.aspx) , available in the Mises Store. Send him mail (mailto:[email protected]). See David Gordon's
article archives (http://mises.org/daily/author/64/David-Gordon) .
You can subscribe to future articles by David Gordon via this RSS feed (http://mises.org/Feeds/articles.ashx?
AuthorId=64) .
Copyright © 2012 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby
granted, provided full credit is given.