Friday, April 03, 2009

Drug War Mailbag   [Jonah Goldberg]

Okay, this happens every time the drug war comes up. Lots of email. I'm just going to post some of the best/most representative. I'm not going to reply to them all, but I have given short (non-exhaustive!) responses to some. All in all I agree with some points, disagree with others. But it's been a long week and cocktail hour is fast approaching (Yes, I appreciate the irony!). From a reader:

Your liberal reader wrote:

>>What evidence do you have for the idea that blacks are "disproportionately in this line of work"?

Answer:
Dead bodies. The victims of drug dealing-related murders are disproportionately black. Does your liberal reader want to argue there's a campaign by white drug dealers to rub out their black counterparts? Or that black drug dealers are significantly more inclined to violence?

All of these liberals who decry the fact that blacks are disproportionately convicted and imprisoned on drug charges while white users are not imprisoned are deliberately ignoring the fact that plea bargains are routine practice in the justice system, so the person in the can on possession charges likely faced much more serious charges for selling drugs first, and pleaded down to possession.

And:

G,


I’ve often made this point and you probably know it well. But, here it is again. Math in the hands of non-math people is like giving a toddler a loaded shotgun. No good comes from it. You really see that in debates about the drug wars. Lots of people not good with math start firing off numbers.

What I always find somewhat amusing is how this topic makes everyone squirm and dissemble. For instance, read Adam Smith’s discussion of English Corn Laws. Then read it again and replace “corn” with “drugs.” The economic arguments in favor of drug laws go up in smoke. Yet, most conservatives would never admit it. Heck, even liberals will struggle to admit it.

Like genetics, the drug debate touches on some uncomfortable truths that most of us would just as soon ignore.


Have a great weekend.

And:

A real confounding issue is that a white (rich) person is more likely than a black (poor) one to be acquitted of a murder that he *did* commit and a poor/black defendent is more likely to be convicted of one that he didn't commit.

That's a fundamental property of our adversarial judicial system. And, to the extent that black people are poor *because* of historic racism, it's a very real complaint.

Me: Yes, it is.

And:

“Militarized police departments across the nation month after month kick down the wrong doors, terrify innocent families, shoot lawful citizens, and often kill the family dog.”  I have been a California Highway Patrol Officer for twenty-two years and words cannot express how much this statement pisses me off.  I won’t deny that mistakes happen, but the idea that they are widespread is abhorrent.  I’m not asking you to defend Mr. Wilkerson’s [sic] statement, but why did you include this last sentence in your post if you weren’t going to address it?

Me: I included that passage because  I thought it helped clarify where Wilkinson is coming from.

And:

Jonah, I don’t think you dealt adequately with what is the most important point made by the liberal reader.  Your opening point was that:

 

“"Meanwhile, the drug war — despite the many authentic tragedies it produces — doesn't set out to punish blacks because they are black. It sets out to punish people who sell (and to a lesser extent buy) drugs and use violence to protect their trade.”

 

This point is clearly undermined by the disproportionate policing argument, and your suggestion that it can be solved by simply policing whites more does not vitiate his challenge to your original point – which was that blacks are not punished because they are black.  If drug use is at least equal, and blacks are clearly policed and arrested more, then we will have to really strain our selves to find a non-race based explanation.  Unless you are completely unwilling to separate out policing and punishment for use from policing and punishment for the violence accompanying illegality, I see no substantial argument for the lack of extant policing of white drug use.  I suppose you could argue that disproportionate policing of blacks is due to the violence that coexists with the drug trade and the more visible nature of the damage that drug use is reaping on certain black communities.  But I think there is a strong argument to be made that the violence is endogenous to the high levels of surveillance and risk of arrest that accompanies any attempt to sell drugs in this environment.  Without that level of surveillance, I highly doubt the level of violence would be nearly as high.  So the real debate needs to be about the reasons for disproportionate policing.  If you want to police violence, fine, then police violence.  If you want to police drug use, fine, then police drug use.  They are two separate matters.  We should expect that policing of violence should be higher where violence is higher; same then for drug use.  But with drug use, there is no such proportionality.  And excluding violence, I see no good non-racial explanation for why this is the case.

Me: Actually, my original basic point was that these arguments don't seem particularly libertarian. Regardless, there's a lot here I disagree with, but let me just say one thing off the top.  Poor people are easier to catch and prosecute than rich people. Blacks are disproportionately poor. Urban people are easier to catch and prosecute than suburban people. Blacks are disproportionately urban. Why do we have to assume anything other than common sense that blacks would be affected?  Why does it have to be racism? Again, I don't dispute that there's racism out there, but I just don't find it to be anywhere near the most powerful explanation or the best argument. 

Now of course, you can make the case that black are poor and urban in part because of the history of racism — that's undoubtedly true —  but the "and therefore what?" that follows  that concession doesn't necessarily lend itself to a whole lot of libertarian arguments.

And:

Jonah:

One thing you almost get at but not quite:

The purpose of the drug war is not just to "punish"* those who use and sell drugs, but to protect the rest of the community— those affected by drug use. 

to the extent that drug criminalization policies succeed in this, then it may be blacks that disproportionately BENEFIT from the drug war.

It is of course an open question whether the policies succeed in their goals.  Bottom line: bringing race into it clouds the issue.  Despite the fantasies of libertarians and liberals,  I do not think that anyone supports the drug war for the purpose of screwing over blacks.

While I expect no better of liberals, libertarians GREATLY diminish themselves by their attempts to play the race card with this issue.

* I would also say that those  incarcerated, such consequences often set those individuals on the right path (go to any AA/ NA meeting), and so they, too, "benefit" from the drug war.

And, last, here's a reasonable email from my libertarian economist friend Steve Horwitz:

One quick thought:

There's a difference between saying "the war on drugs does disproportionate harm to African-Americans" and "the war on drugs is racist."  I think the second is a statement of intent, and I don't think the vast majority of those who support current drug policy intend to harm blacks.  The first, however, is an empirical claim, and one I think is accurate.

As a libertarian, I have no problem using the first statement as one reason why the war on drugs is bad.  It's not my first or most important reason, but it is one.  And I think it's a valid point to raise if for no other reason than the following:  I DO think that libertarians (and conservatives) should be doing more to show how our preferred policies will do well by the worst off among us.  That's neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for deciding which policies are to be preferred, but rather a "really good reason" to adopt particular policies.  If one thinks the war on drugs is bad for lots of reasons, emphasizing the reasons that might appeal to particular audiences is just good rhetoric and good politics and violates no element of libertarianism that I'm aware of.

After all, I'd make the identical argument about minimum wage laws and their effects on blacks (although, there, the intent of those who wrote the laws in the 30s and 40s was indeed racist and xenophobic, even if most supporters today are not).

04/03 05:27 PMShare