Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Legalize Methamphetamine

Metham­phet­a­mine is bad stuff. Really, really bad stuff. If the devil were to invent a drug to destroy mankind, it would be meth. That’s why I used to say that metham­phet­a­mine, out of all of the drugs in the world, should be illegal.

Phoenix crim­i­nal defense attor­ney Marc Vic­tor makes a com­pelling argu­ment that metham­phet­a­mine should be legal­ized. I think that he is right, and that I was wrong: metham­phet­a­mine, along with all of the other now-illegal drugs (most of which are benign com­pared to meth) should be legalized.

Tech­no­rati Tags: , ,

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

2 Responses to “Legalize Methamphetamine”

  1. Michael Stuart says:

    Glad you sent me this link Mark.

    Absolutely, with­out excep­tion, every­thing must be “legal”. In fact what is un-LAWful is mak­ing sub­stances illegal.

    The prin­ci­ple at stake is sim­ple; who owns your body?

    Metham­phet­a­mine. PCP. Ket­a­mine. LSD. Pey­ote. Pot. MDMA–“ecstasy”. Heroin.
    Vicodin. Oxy­con­tin. Propo­fol.
    Cyanide. Strych­nine.
    Paint thin­ner. Freon.

    My body, not yours.

    The inevitable shrill shriek of the col­lec­tivist is “but what about sociiiiiiietyyyy?”

    There’s no such thing. There are only indi­vid­u­als. If one harms another, THAT is the crime–NOT the sub­stances he was ingest­ing prior to the harm.

    There must be no leniency in pun­ish­ment for a given harm based on the miscreant’s state of intox­i­ca­tion, nor any extra pun­ish­ment; their state of intox­i­ca­tion is imma­te­r­ial, because they CHOSE that state, and CHOSE to do the harm–whether or not the intox­i­cant dis­in­hib­ited them suf­fi­ciently to allow them to com­mit it, the chain of choices was THEIRS, not the drug’s.

    But they’re addicts!” No such thing. Read the late great Thomas Szasz on the ille­git­i­macy of psy­chi­atric labels; the dis­em­pow­er­ing nature of words like “addict” and “dis­ease”. And, even if you sub­scribe to these arti­fi­cial constructs–and choose to ignore the “addicts” dere­lic­tion of moral duty–they still chose the path they’re on, cul­mi­nat­ing in what­ever vio­lence they commit.

    That’s the moral argu­ment. The much less pow­er­ful util­i­tar­ian argu­ment applies as well, for those so inclined–the War on (some) Drugs doesn’t work. Well, it DOES work for those who designed it; what appears to be an utter clus­ter­fuck super­fi­cially has masterfully:

    * vastly increased drugs’ cus­tomer base
    * increased drug purity and avail­abil­ity; prod­uct has never been this good
    * cre­ated unheard-of prof­its for the participants–most of them directly spon­sored by, or care­fully nur­tured, by the gov­ern­ment sup­pos­edly fight­ing drugs. The banks laun­der $500 Bil­lion annu­ally in drug money–so much, they’d be insol­vent with­out this source of hard cash*.
    * enor­mous and highly prof­itable prison pop­u­la­tions who are now a ready source of slave labor at 25 cents/hour.

    * don’t believe it? Google Wells Fargo’s recent set­tle­ment for laun­der­ing drug money; roughly 0.03 per­cent of the amount laundered.

Leave a non-anonymous Reply