On Juarez, Afghanistan, and Wal-Mart: The Overwhelming Case Against Prohibition

I found it extremely ironic to read about this weekend's Ciudad Juarez shootings ("Two Americans killed in Mexico shootings") and the Afghan poppy harvest ("Afghan poppy harvest is next US challenge") side by side in this Wednesday's edition of the Collegiate Times (available here, page 4). All around us are signs of the immense failure of the War on Drugs, and yet prohibitionists continue to vouch for the efficacy of their approach. Drug use is indeed a problem, but it is one that should be addressed without causing brutal violence and massive unemployment. Unfortunately, prohibition does exactly that.

Making drugs illegal does not cause demand to disappear, so users are forced to turn to the black market to obtain their drug of choice, regardless of whether it is Adderall, painkillers, marijuana, or heroin. In this black market, suppliers face more risk, resulting in higher drug prices, but these prices create the potential for huge profits. Profits so large that they become worth killing for, which is what happens not only in Mexican border towns but also in our own inner cities. And in order to keep these profits, no one is off limits from killing, not even diplomats or police officers.

Now contrast this system to one in which drugs are regulated in the same manner as alcohol or tobacco. The primary distribution method for these two substances is not the black market, but the legal, regulated market, and because of this no one kills anyone in the regular course of business. In addition, the sales of these products are taxed, generating additional revenue for the state, and the people in charge of distributing these products are gainfully employed and presumably paying income taxes. The prohibitionist alternatives are imprisoning drug offenders and paying farmers not to grow anything, which both come at great cost to the state.

Even in our own country, the prohibitionist mentality is putting hard-working, law-abiding citizens out of work. Take the case of Joseph Casias, a dedicated employee of the Wal-Mart in Battle Creek, Michigan, whose hard work won him the award of Associate of the Year in 2008. Joseph also suffers from sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor, and to treat the severe pain caused by the affliction he uses medical marijuana, which is legal in the state of Michigan. Yet when he tested positive for marijuana in a drug screening following a work-related accident, the company decide to fire him last November. Furthermore, earlier this week it was reported that Wal-Mart was challenging his eligibility for unemployment benefits, although they have since changed their position, most likely due to the high volume of negative publicity they received in the media. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Joseph will be able to find another job to support his two children and pay for his medical bills in Michigan, which has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

All of this illustrates the high cost of prohibition, but it should also be noted that it is ineffective. In Portugal, the Netherlands, and other places that have decriminalized drugs, drug use has actually gone down in response to decriminalization, as more people are willing to seek treatment, among other reasons. And over the past 30 years in the US smoking rates, particularly among teenagers, have gone down, not because of making cigarettes illegal and using scare tactics, but because of honest education and open dialogue on the subject. In our great country that was founded, above all else, on the principle of liberty, it is time to end the fascist policy of prohibition.

Digging Ourselves Out of a Hole?

Last Sunday, Daniel Goleman came to Blacksburg to talk about his new book, Ecological Intelligence. Not surprisingly, more than a few people were angry at the message he was sending. The notion that we can consume our way out of the environmental problems we now face is absurd. The impacts of continuing to consume at current rates and a steadily rising population that wants to mimic our patterns of consumption will not be offset by consuming stuff that is less bad.

But on the other hand, as consumers we should have the level of detailed information about products that Goleman suggests with his notion of "radical transparency". We should know the full impact of what we're getting before we get it. And in a sense, this same logic was behind the controversial First & Main development in Blacksburg.

In their proposal, Fairmount Properties used the terms "residential" and "mixed-use development" several times, but when it came time to build the only concepts on their mind was commercial and big-box retail. So of course members of Town Council were upset by the deception and fought the project that they didn't approve.

Last night, at the Town Council Candidate Forum hosted by the SGA, a couple candidates voiced their feelings that the Town Council erred on this issue, that they should have been fully supportive of any commercial development in Blacksburg as a boon to the tax base, whatever the cost. This kind of thinking is short-sighted, as it fails to consider even the current needs of the schoolchildren located right next to where the proposed big box would have been, much less the character and future of the town.

An onslaught of unbridled economic growth can hardly be called sustainable; while it may ensure that Blacksburg may still exist in 50 years, it would hardly be the Blacksburg that we know and love today. Although some of the candidates would have you believe this myth, one look at the way Christiansburg has developed and the impacts of sprawl on its smaller population should be all it takes to convince you that the need for economic development needs to be carefully balanced with concerns of social and environmental sustainability. Bryce Carter, Susan Anderson, and Cecile Newcomb were three candidates who showed that they understand this balancing act and that they desire more for Blacksburg than endless strip malls and box stores from South Main to Christiansburg and all the way out Prices Fork Road.

Sustainability can be tough, but by recognizing the importance of all three legs of the stool, social, economic, and environment, our town can grow to meet all the needs of its residents while remaining the Blacksburg we love. But focus too much on one aspect, and the stool begins to tilt while the hole next to it gets deeper.