Killers and Rapists; Not Potheads.

Prohibition Back in the Day: Alcohol

Our story begins in the late 1840s, with several pietous religious denominations finally coming together in agreement on something: that alcohol is the tool of Satan himself, and that the full power of the State should be used to eliminate it from society once and for all.

The initial seed for this movement was planted by the Women's Christian Temperance Union. Mary Hunt, the superintendent of the Union's Department of Scientific Temperance Instruction, campaigned vigorously to ensure that all school textbooks would be required by law to replace all factual information about alcohol with unsubstantiated propaganda against it.

One of the standard textbooks at this time included this statement about alcohol: "In practice, we find that in many persons a small quantity of alcohol improves digestion." These textbooks were giving school children honest information about alcohol--Mary Hunt would have none of it.

After the success of her campaign, that text was erased, and replaced with the following : "Alcohol is not a food or drink. Medical writers, without exception, classify alcohol as a poison." These blatant lies planted the initial seeds of alcohol prohibition, as people became so frightened by the presence of alcohol that they simply couldn't bear to know that anyone who wished to do so could just go out and buy it and then do God knows what.

On January 16, 1920, the Eighteenth Amendment went into effect, and prohibition began. The invitation to a church celebration in New York said, "Let the church bells ring, and let their be great rejoicing! An enemy has been overthrown, and victory crowns the forces of righteousness!"

The effects of Prohibition, however, were neither victorious nor righteous.

Within a single week, portable stills were on sale all throughout the United States. People began organizing smuggling routes to bring alcohol into America from Canada. A group of men (including Al Capone) began learning how to bootleg alcohol.

The low-quality alcohol supplied by organized bootlegging directly caused at least twelve thousand deaths over the course of Prohibition. After thirteen years, it finally became obvious that Prohibition had done more harm than good. While thousands of people were going blind and dying from bootlegged alcohol, Al Capone was making sixty million dollars per year selling it. On December 5, 1933, the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-Fifth.

Legalizing alcohol did several things. First, it eliminated the need for propoganda that did little but cause teetotalers to nod their heads and barflies to roll their eyes. In its place entered the possibility for honest education about the harm and risk involved in using alcohol, which would deter those who would prefer to avoid that harm, and also allow those who still wanted to drink to do so in the safest manner possible. Second, it allowed society to deal honestly with the problem of alcoholism. Once alcohol consumption was no longer a crime punishable by imprisonment, alcoholics were free to come forward and confess their difficulty in quitting; society was able to create support groups and detox programs to help rehabilitate these people, instead of simply throwing them in jail along with genuine criminals. Third, it allowed those who still wished to continue drinking to at least be assured that their alcohol was of a quality that would not turn them blind or kill them, and to be able to do so without turning to organized crime in order to fund their habit.

And yet, in spite of this vivid lesson from American history, a prohibition at least as damaging as the first still continues to this day: that of marijuana. Having supposedly learned the lesson that people should be free to make their own decisions and handle the consequences of their own actions, and that prohibition can only do more harm than good, why does the prohibition of a substance that has been proven to be far less damaging than alcohol continue?

The reason for the prohibition of marijuana and the reason for the original prohibition of alcohol are exactly the same: lies.

Prohibition Then and Now: The Parallels

In 1937, Hearst Paper Manufacturing had just patented a new method of making plastics from oil and coal, as well as a new method of making paper from wood pulp. DuPont Corporation, which was closely associated with Hearst Paper, expected that these two new inventions would account for about eighty percent of its sales for the next sixty years.

Then, a man named G. W. Schlicten invented something called the decorticator.

It is hard for us today to understand just how revolutionary this invention was for its time. The history of hemp has been suppressed to the point that most people have no idea of the thousands of uses that hemp that has been put to throughout history. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin all cultivated hemp. The word "canvas," which is used to refer to the heavy-duty fabric used for--among other things--sails, tents, marquees, backpacks, and wagon coverings, is derived from the word "cannabis."

Why? Because all of these things were originally made from the incredibly sturdy hurds of a plant that is known as cannabis . . . or hemp . . . or marijuana. In addition to everything that we refer to today as "canvas," most clothes and medicines were also originally made of cannabis. Hemp was in fact the most widely used plant in industry, in spite of the fact that primitive harvesting methods only allowed 23% of the plant's weight to be processed into a usable form. It was so widely used, in fact, that at one point in time it was recognized as currency.

The invention of the decorticator was even more revolutionary than the invention of the cotton gin. It would've increased the usable weight of the hemp plant from 23% all the way to 100%, and it would've cut man-hours per acre of hemp from two or three hundred all the way down to just two or three.

A single invention causing this much of an increase in productivity is practically unheard of throughout all human history. It would've meant a highly increased volume and drastically lowered price for all things made from hemp: practically all textiles, fabrics, and papers, and several of the most commonly prescribed medicines.

It also would have made Hearst Paper's recently patented method of making plastic from oil and of making paper from wood pulp worthlessly outdated.

DuPont and Hearst Paper, therefore, had to do something to retain their profits. They immediately began working together to criminalize marijuana. How did they plan to do so? The same way that Mary Hunt did: by telling people lies until they're so frightened by the substance that they actually call for prohibition themselves.

William Randolf Hearst, as the President of Hearst Paper Manufacturing, had a unique position in this story in two respects. The first is that, as the supplier of the paper on which newspapers were printed, he was in a unique position to influence the content of those newspapers. The second is that the increased productivity in the production of paper from hemp would've put him out of business. In order to keep himself in business as the chief supplier of paper, Hearst would use his position as the supplier of paper in order to convince the newspapers to put propaganda against hemp in their headlines on an almost daily basis.

Hearst had just one problem: the people of his day wouldn't have believed the outrageous stories that he was telling about hemp any more than people today would believe that people were smoking cotton and then going on serial killing rampages through New York. "Marihuana" was the Mexican slang term that Hearst used to convince people that the substance in question was really some previously unheard of drug, and not the most widely used crop in all of agriculture.

One story of a single "marihuana" joint that was found in a car after an accident dominated Hearst's headlines for weeks, even though alcohol-connected accidents outnumbered marijuana-conected ones by more than ten thousand to one.

On August 2, 1937, a man named Herman Oliphant introduced the Marihuana Tax Act to the Means and Ways Committee. Why didn't he introduce this bill to one of the more relevant committees, such as those of agriculture, food and drugs, or textiles?

The Means and Ways Committee just so happens to have been the only committee that could introduce a bill to the House of Representatives for an immediate vote without first requiring that the bill be debated by other committees. If the bill had been debated by other committees before its introduction, it would have gone nowhere.

The Food and Drug Committee would never have agreed to such an act against the number one medicinal crop of the day; the Textile Committee would never have agreed to such an act against the number one textile crop of the day; and the Agricultural Committee would never have agreed to such an act against the number one agricultural crop in existence. Introducing this bill to the Means and Ways Committee conveniently allowed the bill to make it to the House without any of these other committees realizing that what was happening was not the outlawing of some previously unheard of drug, but was rather the outlawing of the number one agricultural plant in America.

The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury at this time was Andrew Mellon. Andrew Mellon just so happened to have been the single largest stockholder in one of just two banks that did business with DuPont corporation. He clearly had a financial incentive in seeing to it that DuPont's profits were protected from the development of hemp agriculture. In 1931, Mellon appointed Harry Anslinger--his own nephew-in-law--to the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

During the introduction of the Marihuana Tax Act, Harry Anslinger testified before the House in favor of its passing. His testimony consisted of nothing more than reading aloud from Hearst's sensationalized newspapers. Anslinger testified as fact, for example, that fifty percent of all violent crimes in the United States could be directly linked to marijuana.

Dr. William G. Woodward, speaking on behalf of the American Medical Association, testified against passing the Act. He told the House that the AMA had just realized "two days before" that the substance that they were planning on criminalizing, "marijuana," was actually CANNABIS, the most widely prescribed medicine in the United States. After expressing his outrage over the deception involved in referring to the substance by the Mexican slang term "marijuana" instead of either of its real names ("hemp" or "cannabis"), and then explaining that the American Medical Association was unequivocally against outlawing the plant that provided the most commonly prescribed medicines in America, Dr. Woodward was dismissed from the House.

When the Marihuana Tax Act came up for its last discussion before the vote, a member of Congress asked, "Did anyone consult the American Medical Association to get their opinion?"

A representative of the Means and Ways Committee who was friends with both Anslingner and Hearst replied, "Yes, we did . . . they are in complete agreement [that marijuana should be outlawed]." With this consequential lie, the Marihuana Tax Act passed. Hemp prohibition passed on exactly the same basis that alcohol prohibition did: lies.

Ok, so Hemp Prohibition was based on lies. But is it really worth ending it at this point?

Yes.

In America today, one arrest on charges of nothing more than marijuana possession occurs every thirty-eight seconds. It costs $20,000 to keep one single "offender" in jail for just one year.

This adds up to $42,000,000,000 that is spent every single year just to keep non-violent users of marijuana in jail.

Legalizing hemp would not only free $42,000,000,000 to be spent on more productive pursuits than jailing people who want to smoke marijuana, it would clear out space in American prisons for the people who actually deserve to be there--killers and rapists, not potheads.

This money could go a long way towards paying off the national debt, or it could be used to cut the federal income tax by seventy-five percent. All it would take is that we simply stop prosecuting people for how they decide to exercise their right to their own bodies.

Would there be any other benefits to ending prohibition?

The legalization of hemp, if done properly, could essentially end deforestation. Some strains of hemp can reach a height of twenty feet. According the USDA Bulletin No. 404 which was released in 1916 (back when hemp was the number one agricultural crop in America), a single acre of hemp makes as much pulp as four and one-tenth acres of trees.

This analysis does not account for the invention of the decorticator, which would have more than quadrupled the productivity of hemp while cutting man-hours per acre from three hundred down to two.

To make pulp for paper, the lignins in either hemp or wood must be broken down by a chemical process that today is one of the world's largest sources of pollution. While wood often has a lignin content as high as thirty percent, the maximum lignin content of hemp is just ten percent. This means not only that hemp provides several times more pulp per acre than trees, but that four to seven times less pollution is required in order to break this pulp down into a usable form.

The most important thing, however, is this: hemp grows back every single year. Trees do not. Once trees are cut down, they're gone for decades. Hemp is back within a single year.

With sufficient effort towards cultivating hemp for paper instead of wood, we could immediately end the cause of deforestation.

All of this is not to mention the fact that using hemp instead of corn for biofuel energy could entirely eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, allowing us to switch our own energy consumption to hemp, and allowing us to become an exporter of oil instead of an importer. This effect of legalizing hemp is so tremendous that it deserves its own blog, which is coming soon.

So exactly how unhealthy is marijuana to smoke?

Ultimately, this shouldn't even matter. There is no provision in the Constitution for the government to protect people from their own actions. An act is a "crime" if it harms the life, liberty, or property of a person who did not consent to the possibility of that harm.

With the smoking of marijuana, no one is harmed besides the user himself, and it makes no sense whatsoever to put a person in jail for being the victim of his own action. If it is the government's job to protect people from actions that harm themselves and no one else, then the government should also outlaw smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and eating bacon and eggs, which are both high in the kind of saturated fat that has been proven to be one of the main causes of heart attacks. But in any case, marijuana is actually less harmful than cigarettes, alcohol, or a daily breakfast of saturated-fat-filled bacon and eggs.

Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California in San Fransisco ranked alcohol, caffeine, and marijuana based on the following five criteria. These five categories are as follows.

(1) Withdrawal: How severe are withdrawal symptoms when one stops using the drug?

(2) Reinforcement: Does the drug induce users to keep taking it again and again?

(3) Tolerance: Does the user need to use increasing dosages to get the original effect?

(4) Dependence: How easy is it for a user to quit the drug?

(5) Intoxication: How severe is the intoxication produced by the drug in typical use?

Alcohol, caffeine, and marijuana were ranked from one to six in each of these categories. A rating of one indicates the most addictive tendencies, while a rating of six denotes the safest ones.

(1) In the withdrawal category, marijuana was ranked a five; alcohol, on the other hand, was given a one.

(2) In the reinforcement category, marijuana was given a six; alcohol was given a three.

(3) In the tolerance category, marijuana was given a five; caffeine was given a three.

(4) In the dependence category, marijuana was given a six; alcohol was given a four.

(5) Finally, in the intoxication category, marijuana was given a four; alcohol was given a one.

Marijuana consistently scored better than alcohol and coffee in all categories. The only exception is in the tolerance category, in which marijuana was scored more tolerant than alcohol, but less tolerant than caffeine.

Medical history has never recorded a single death that has been directly linked to marijuana. Compare that to one thousand to ten thousands deaths which have been directly linked to caffeine (from stress, ulcers, and irregular heartbeats triggered by caffeine consumption), and at least one hundred and fifty thousands deaths directly linked to alcohol (this statistic not including alcohol's connection to fifty percent of all highway deaths and sixty-five percent of all murders.)

Marijuana users, on the other hand, have the same--and possibly even lower--rates of murder and highway deaths than the general non-marijuana using population. Marijuana is clearly one of the safest psychoactive substances available.

In fact, Benowitz' analysis was of smoking joints of marijuana. When a person smokes a joint, he does not only inhale THC, which is the active ingredient in marijuana that causes the high. He also inhales large amounts of carcinogens from the smoke itself. With the invention of something called a vaporizer, however, a person is able to smoke pure THC, filtering out all of the carcinogenic smoke.

Prohibition, however, has made the purchase of vaporizers illegal. If you want to smoke pot, you're going to have to do it in the most unhealthy manner possible--trying to minimize the damage to your health will get you thrown in jail. But don't forget that they're prohibiting this substance out of concern for your health!

Not only shouldn't it matter even if marijuana harmful to the user, but it is in reality actually no more harmful (and perhaps actually much less harmful) than drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, or eating a daily breakfast of saturated-fat-filled bacon and eggs; and legalization would make the use of marijuana still yet safer.

If we can simply overcome whatever it is that causes us to feel the need to control the behavior of other people through the force of the government, we can save billions of dollars, clear out room in our crowded prisons for the people who actually deserve to be there, and take a huge step towards fighting deforestation. The fact that hemp alone has the potential to entirely end our dependence on foreign oil and allow us to become a net exporter of oil will be dealt with in a later essay.

It's time that we take a stand for liberty, just as we did with the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, by ending the prohibition of marijuana and recognizing the right of every single person to exercise his own self-ownership in whatever manner he sees fit. The benefits in store for all society, if only it can overcome its self-righteousness and exercise this bare minimal level of respect and tolerance, are enormous.

Law and Morality

I. The Morality of Law?

Is it conceivable that a law could be written which would contain no moral judgment? Clearly it is not. For even the man who says, "The law should stay out of the business of morality!" is making his own peculiar moral judgment: that laws concerning moral judgments are wrong. But if the law should not concern itself with moral judgments, why should it concern itself with this one?

The man who makes such a statement has no grounds upon which to base his call for the repeal of the laws he is condemning; for if the law should not concern itself with moral judgments, it should not concern itself with his, either.

It is a simple axiom, then, that all laws are based upon moral judgments. The question that arises from this fact is not "Should moral judgments be made into law?" but rather, "What moral judgments should be made into law?"

Before we can address this question, there is a much more fundamental question that must first be addressed.

II. What is the Law?

It is useful to introduce this question with a common analogy--not because the analogy is true, but precisely because the failure of the analogy provides us with several insights into the nature of a legal system.

The analogy is that the laws of a country are like the rules of a game. The first point to be made about this analogy is this: a person creates a game, and then invites people to voluntarily submit to the rules in order to play the game with him. No one, however, created the reality which we all inhabit--and those who are forced to abide by the laws of the legal system did not voluntarily agree to them before entering society. Every person alive has entered involuntarily into the same objective reality. Thus, one objective morality must necessarily apply equally to every person, simply by virtue of his personhood--even those charged with the creation and operation of a given society's legal system. Those who create laws and administer them are not appointed by divine decree, and as the administers of the law, they are under a particular obligation not to violate the very moral code that they are charged with upholding. The content of this objective moral code is the remaining question to be answered.

The next point about this analogy is this: When a person playing a game breaks the rules, his penalty is only within the context of that particular game. For instance, in a game based on a scoring system, he will lose points. Life is not a game, and it has no scoreboard. What happens to a man who breaks a law? He is punished physically. There are many different types of punishment, but they all have this one thing in common: they are physically violent. To be clear, the definition of violence used throughout this articleis, "The use of force by one man against the person or property of another man." Thus, to punish a thief by using physical force against his person--to restrain him--and then against his property--to return the stolen goods--is violence. To punish a murderer by using physical force against his person--either by confining him to a jail cell or by executing him--is violence. To punish a person who drives through a red light by using physical force against his property--by demanding that he hand over a fee to the policeman--is violence.

It was explained in part I that it is axiomatic that all laws implicitly contain moral judgments. Now that we recognize what the law is--violence--we know what that moral judgment is. A law is not simply a statement that the activity in question is "bad." A law is a statement that it is just that violence be used against anyone who engages in a particular activity. This is a fundamental difference, and its importance cannot be stressed strongly enough; for to declare something wrong is not to imply that it is acceptable to use violence against someone who engages in that activity. For example, we may agree that excessive consumption of alcohol is wrong--but this would not imply that it is morally acceptable to kill or imprison alcoholics.

To answer the question, "What is the proper role of the law in society?," we must first ask ourselves a far more basic question:

III. What is the proper role of violence in society?

Suppose a thief uses force against an innocent man in order to take a sum of money from that man's possession and into his own; and that that man then in turn uses force against the thief in order to take that same a sum of money back into his own possession. Both men have committed precisely the same physical act: the violent removal of a sum of money from another man's possession. Which instance of violence was morally defensible, and which was not? The key difference--indeed, the only difference--between these two instances of violence is that one (the thief's) was committed in the absence of prior violence, while the other (the victim's) was committed in response to an instance of prior violence. And it was obviously the victim's use of violence which was morally defensible, and the thief's which was not. The key qualification for the moral defensibility of any instance of violence, then, is whether it was committed (a) in the absence of prior violence, or (b) in response to such an instance of prior violence. If (a), it is immoral; if (b), it is moral. the unjust use of violence must necessarily precede any just use of violence. The initiation of violence is unjust; and only violence in retaliation can be just.

Suppose alternatively that a man breaks into a building that happens at the time to be occupied by one man and one woman. The infiltrator kills the man, and is then in turn himself killed by the woman. Both the infiltrator and the woman have committed precisely the same physical act: the violent ending of another person's life. Which instance of violence was morally defensible, and which was not? The key difference--indeed, the only difference--between these two instances of violence is that one (the infiltrator's) was committed in the absence of prior violence, while the other (the woman's) was committed in response to such an instance of prior violence. And it was obviously the woman's use of violence which was morally defensible, and the infiltrator's which was not. The key qualification for the moral defensibility of any instance of violence, again, is whether it was committed (a) in the absence of prior violence, or (b) in response to such an instance of prior violence. If (a), it is immoral; if (b), it is moral. And again, the unjust use of violence must necessarily precede any just use of violence. The initiation of violence is unjust; only violence in retaliation can be just.

IV. Implications for the Law

I am operating here from the premise that morality exists because human happiness is an end unto itself, and that a just and free society is a necessary precondition to that happiness; and as such, I hold that the above principle: that the initiation of violence is unjust, and only the retaliation against such violence that can ever be just, is the only principle capable of meeting those criteria, and that this is the only principle that could form the basis for a society that is equally free and just to all of its members. Aside from this principle, every member of society should have the right to do as he sees fit with his own person, and with his own justly acquired property, so long as he does not directly harm the person or property of any other member of society in doing so.

So if it is true that the immoral use of violence must necessarily precede any moral use of violence; and if it is true that the law itself is, by definition, violence; what then is the proper moral role of the law in society?

The proper role of the law is exactly the same as the proper role of violence: that it be used only in response to the immoral use of violence. For only the unjust initiation of violence can justify the use of violence in retaliation. A just law is one that stands up to this criterion.

There is another side to the coin we have here been describing. This side of the coin is expressed by the question, "What is the moral status of a law that is not used in response to the immoral use of violence?" That law would itself constitute the immoral use of violence, for it is the initiation of violence that is unjust, and the retaliation again such an initiation of violence that is just. If the morality of the law derives solely from the moral right of each man to defend himself with violence from violent aggression, and the law itself becomes violent aggression, then man has the right to defend himself from it with violence.

As Frederic Bastiat wrote in The Law, "The law perverted! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!"

Such is the moral status of any law that is not directly concerned with defending and protecting men's rights. Such is the moral status of any law concerning any action of any man that does not constitute violent aggression against another man's person or property.

Such, therefore, is the moral status of any law concerning such activities as gambling, the use of drugs, prostitution, or any other action that does not constitute an initiation of violence against anyone's moral right to his own person or property. Our moral judgment of these actions is entirely irrelevant to the moral question which the law is actually concerned with, which is: Is the use of violence against this activity justified? The answer to this moral question is that if the activity itself does not involve violence, NO; the use of violence is not justified.

At least in regards to our personal lives, we recognize this truth. Upon seeing a man gambling, or smoking marijuana within his own home, very few men would attempt to drag the man into a cage and confine him there for having been so "immoral," even if they might condemn the morality of the action itself; for the act of locking the gambler or stoner in a cage would itself constitute an unwarranted and immoral use of violence. The gambler or stoner would be justified--regardless of the morality of his actions, which the attacker may well be right to condemn--in defending himself from his aggressor--even with violence, if such became necessary. For the gambler and the stoner are violating no one's rights; the moralizer who breaks into the former's home and tries to confine him to a cage is. Morally speaking, however, there is no distinction whatsoever from a policeman breaking into a person's home and throwing him in jail, and a private citizen breaking into a person's home and locking him in a cage. Where the one is justified, so is the other; and where the one is not, neither is the other.

As Frederick Bastiat wrote also in The Law, "[the] law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law perverted!"

The issue is not that the law should not concern itself with morality; it is that a law that initiates violence against the partaker in any activity which violates no one else's rights can have no pretense to being moral at all!