Reader Bobby Hill had some interesting comments on my previous response regarding his reasons for opposing Prop. 5. I don't know if I'll have time to respond, but they're worth reading:
Concededly, all-or-nothing dogmatism usually is counter-productive. Still, the question is under what state of affairs does “a slight amelioration” prove more counter-productive than none; when does voting for “compromises” amount to nothing more productive than accepting crumbs from the tyrant’s table, to paraphrase Malcolm X?
In a Liberty article some time ago, you powerfully showed that gradualism or compromise in the amelioration of slavery was neither just nor practical, but that bloodshed was. (Forgive me if I misstate or overstate your position. I do not have the article before me.) I agree, and am disgusted by certain libertarians’ contention that it would have been acceptable to compensate slave holders in exchange for freeing slaves. Compensation to end slavery should only mean that the slave holder pays restitution to the slave.
Now, I don’t contend that the evil of the drug war is comparable to that of de jure slavery. But the drug war is a similar type of tyranny, one with which it is folly to negotiate piecemeal “improvement,” unless the improvement is an actual decriminalization of a drug. Your school voucher example is inapposite. A voucher does counter the underlying evil of government education (its monopoly power) by empowering many to completely opt out of their government school. By contrast, Prop-5 does not allow anyone to opt out of prohibition. There is no increase in freedom offered by Prop. 5. (One exception is that by reducing the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor to an infraction, Prop. 5 would essentially decriminalize possession of less than one ounce of marijuana.)
When, say, at a dinner party, I tell someone that I favor complete decriminalization of narcotics, invariably the objection is that “addicts” commit bad crime X, Y or Z. I counter that of course we should punish persons who commit X, Y and Z. I add that we will have incredible resources to apprehend X, Y and Z violators, and plenty of prison space for them, once we stop interdicting, surveilling, infiltrating, searching, seizing, prosecuting, incarcerating and forcibly rehabilitating A, B and C drug crime. In my original letter to you, my point was less that I care what the public thinks about drug user’s free will (although I do care), but that Prop. 5 would kill my dinner party answer. Under Prop-5, California would, under certain circumstances, stop punishing X, Y or Z when X, Y or Z is related the perpetrator’s drug use. How then could I respond at dinner? If, because of a perpetrator’s history of drug use we don’t punish him if commits legitimate crime X, Y, or Z, then we really do have little choice but to punish the drug use.
I agree that some drug users do things that they would not do sober. In the case of some drugs, I even believe that most users do things they would not when not under such a drug’s influence. So what? Show me a drug that always causes a person to hurt another, and I could rethink prohibition. It’s the same reasoning as with guns. Some persons will commit crimes while armed with a firearm that they otherwise wouldn’t. Others will use the gun in a manner that does not unjustly hurt another. The relative numbers are beside the point, at least as a matter of principle.
Rehabilitation has no place in the criminal law. I’ve had hundreds of clients subjected to "rehab" in lieu of jail. My clients are grateful for the mercy, but I'm revolted. Consider that one of my clients told me that at his program, he was required to wear a placard around his neck that read, “addict.” I call that brainwashing. Then there are AAs and NAs, a mandatory part of almost all court-ordered "rehab." They are brainwashing extraordinaire. Under the 12-steps, drug convicts must renounce their free will and proclaim that they are helpless to stop using, helpless unless they surrender to a higher power. I call that brainwashing. Changing a person's preferences, desires and beliefs at the point of a gun, where the person has hurt no one, is wrong. I will admit that brainwashing may be a kinder, gentler machine gun hand relative to incarceration, as I wrote. But I would like to think that if I were a defendant facing a judge or prosecutor offering rehabilitation in lieu of prison, I would have the courage to give them my body and freedom rather than my will. Honestly, I rather doubt I would have that courage. There are few Thomas More’s among us, especially among habitual drug users.
I do not favor enhancing sentences for persons who commit crimes while under the influence. This proposal is similar to hate crime enhancements — not unjust, just unnecessary. Robbery is robbery, whether the robber is high or sober, whether the robber targets a gay victim or a random one. Recidivist laws, such as a properly narrow three strikes law, adequately deter and incapacitate those prone to hate crime or prone to narcotics-fueled legitimate crime.
