HOME Center for Individual Responsibility and Freedom


Our Prison Nation and Acts between Consenting Adults

The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world… locking up between five to ten times more per capita than Canada, Australia or Europe and even about four times the same for Mexico. And yet US overall crime rates remain about twice the world average and murder rates generally triple those of other Western nations. More prisons, more inmates and more crime. And we refer to our country as "the land of the free". Tell that to a prisoner or murder victim or stressed tax payer.

And it is expensive. The estimated cost to lock-up one person ranges from $20,000 to $50,000 per year. Out prison population numbers about two million. And then add the costs of prosecuting and policing. And further add the cost of removing a potential worker and his taxes from the market. We spend far more money "controlling" criminal behavior than any other nation without the results to justify it. We must ask why is it that Canada and Australia, both immigrant nations with relatively diverse populations, spend much less, lock-up fewer, and still have lower crime rates? Are Americans more inherently inclined towards criminality, or is our system of "justice" just broken? Since there is little evidence implicating genetics, we must conclude the system is broken.

Many criminologists blame the "drug war" as a leading contributing factor to the huge disparities in rates. This is based on the estimate that over half of our prison population got there via drug related crime. And also some remember that we saw a similar run up of crime and violence in the late 1920's when alcohol prohibition spiked criminal activity to such an extent the 21st Amendment was repealed in 1933. So how did we manage to dig ourselves into a similar hole by repeating past mistakes, and why is it taking so long to realize our errors and change direction?

The answer to the former no doubt includes the proverbial lapse in collective memory and the erroneous thinking that drugs other than alcohol (but producing similar effects) could be regulated without experiencing similar consequences. And the reason it is taking so long to change course is that whenever laws are passed impacting specific markets, strongly vested economic interests spring up to preserve status quo. The drug war has created its own sizable economy, funding gangs from the streets of Mexico to the Taliban, and providing many jobs from defense lawyers to police and prison guards in addition to lucrative profits for producers, smugglers, and sellers. Pot harvesting creates more wealth than any other agricultural crop in California. The power of money. Plus after decades of brainwashing with exaggerated claims about the evils of certain stigmatized drugs, the public still struggles with the notion that it would lessen crime and save money to implement alternative ways for regulating drugs and reducing consumption.

That begs the question of why the US pursued the drug war more vigorously than other Western countries in the first place? To answer we must consider the fear factors stemming from the culture clashes, greater ethnic diversity, and excessive religious fervor. A big factor driving the prohibition of cocaine was fear of the inner city music culture. And Mexicans using marijuana created fear about the use of pot. And Chinese immigrants smoking opium while urban blacks needled heroin frightened still more. And the 60's media over-hyping "hippies" getting stoned
no doubt piled on more. Then add the religious/morality crusaders desiring to define and enforce morality for others in accordance with their own beliefs and practices. (The US is far more religious than most other Western nations.) And it all leads to a mainstream majkority feeling threatened and thus responding with the over-reaction of panic and the creation of a bunch of hypocritical and intellectually capricious laws.

But the "official" reasoning behind the banning of marijuana and cocaine has remained the contention that these drugs represented exceptional "health" threats. Yet few die or sicken from cocaine. And marijuana deaths are essentially nonexistent. But an estimated 400,000 do die yearly from tobacco use… and not only is it legal to manufacture and sell the stuff, but also legal to advertise and thus encourage its use. Again, thanks to the power of money and the vested interests.

There are likely some other influences that contributed to the wasteful insanity of the drug war. But whatever the reasons that got us into this mess, we should by now have plenty of reasons to justify considering a different approach. When Americans finally awakened to problems in the past they have shown the determination to seek solutions. And sometimes it can happen quickly. Was it not Churchill who said that Americans always do the right thing... after they have tried every other alternative?

If we need to fortify ourselves in order to muster the courage to act, we could recollect our founding principles and the spirit that led many to flee the oppressive conditions of other lands. The "Blessings of Liberty" is cited in the lead paragraph to the Constitution as one of the goals of establishing the union. And if these words mean anything it would seem to be that people should at least have the freedom to choose the type of behavior that best serves their interests as long as it does not infringe on the freedoms or welfare of others. Acts between consenting adults should be most reasonably left to consenting adults.

Nanny state government has no moral or legal basis for inserting itself into the private affairs of citizens unless it can be clearly justified from the perspective of protecting the public. The goals of government should be to protect citizens and provide essential services that cannot reasonably be offered by private markets… not to create a hovering bureaucracy that dictates who can marry whom or what drugs, medicines, or foods are permissible to consume.

And if we truly revere our Constitution we should re-read the 14th Amendment which stipulates that "equal protection" must be granted to all groups and laws must only derive in the context of "due process" -- which in order to make any sense must mean reasonable justification. This is the essence of "liberty". Private acts between consenting adults should not be the opportunistic playground for government regulators pandering to public hysteria and under the influence of vested interests that overlook the welfare of the public at large.

6199a