Don Boudreaux has an interesting theory about how prohibition came to be – a theory which is not inconsistent with what we know about politics and public choice. His theory tells us why the temperance movement was successful: After the implementation of the income tax, the government had the financial wherewithal to outlaw booze, previously a huge source of revenue. During the depression, income (and tax revenues) fell dramatically, and Uncle Sam was forced to repeal 18 in order to sustain itself by taxing Jack Daniel. Or so the story goes.
The how of prohibition is another story altogether. And a question that’s plagued me for quite some time, still remains unanswered:
The Temperance Movement understood that the “proper” way (if there can be a “proper” way to interfere with individual sovereignty) to prohibit alcohol was by amending the constitution. And that experiment can only be described as a spectacular failure. I still don’t understand why the standard for opiate/narcotic prohibition is so comparatively lax. Can someone explain it to me? Because the “problems” of alcohol and narcotics seem qualitatively very similar, and I just don’t understand why in one case, the standard is near bulletproof, and in the other it’s not and nobody thinks that it needs to be.
Three weeks ago, I brought up the dog-and-pony show that is Oregon’s attempt to legislate “legal” amounts of marijuana for personal consumption. Since the demon weed is illegal under federal law, it’s a moot point, and a waste of time, money and effort – unless the spineless hacks in the State legislature are willing to make a test case for decriminalization. Worth repeating, I “wonder why States bother passing any laws, whatsoever. Clearly, the federal legislators know better, so we should just let them do all the heavy lifting, and let our State representatives just, like, hang out by the pool or something.”
Anyways, I hate to say “I told you so,” but – the DEA had to go and raid a bunch of clinics in Los Angeles yesterday, so – I told you so. Way to go after the low-hanging fruit, you fucking heroes. I bet those cancer patients put up a hell of a fight.
I can’t say it any better than I did earlier this month, but this time I’ll point a finger. Arnold: If your State “is going to pass a law, and seriously entertain a law which is in direct opposition to Federal law or executive order, or whatever Orwellian nonsense justifies Federal interference, then have the basic human decency to defend your constituents.” Stand up for the “people” that you’re always talking about, tell the Feds to get out of your backyard.
Of course, you can’t – which reveals the sham, the absolute mockery, and abject failure which is American federalism.