rejecting defeat

Now that Herman Cain has moved into the number two position, I thought I would try to ascertain his position on the War on Drugs. From an Atlantic interview:

So what if the root cause is the demand for drugs here in the United States?

If the root cause is demand in the United States, crack down on the laws against illegal drug use. That’s what you do.

Notice Cain did not say “crack down on illegal drug use.” Whether “crack down on the laws against illegal drug use” was inartful phraseology or whether it indicates that he is not pleased with the laws against illegal drug use, who knows? (I suspect the former in light of his other statements.)

The next question involved the role of federalism in the drug war context, and he seemed a bit sympathetic to delegating power to the states:

Is it a state matter or a federal matter? For example, if one state wants to crack down on its drug laws and have stiffer penalties, and another wants to decriminalize use or have medical marijuana, is that a state prerogative? Or should federal law be the guiding force here?

I think it is both, but the state should take the lead in most instances on those issues. There could be some circumstances where it’s better for something to be issued as a federal statute. But the best approach, that not withstanding, is for the states to put their solutions on the table. We have very a wasted resource in this country. Why not use the 50 states. Give them the power. Empower them to solve their own problems with respect to immigration and other issues. And we can learn from them.

Notice that he did not condemn conflicting state marijuana laws. Saying the state should take the lead is not as bad as saying federal law should always control.

Let me say right now that if Cain were to come out and condemn the War on Drugs, I would endorse him wholeheartedly.

I would even be willing to accept being charged with racism.

John Stossel has more from Cain in a recent interview:

While Cain says he wants less government, he also supports bans on abortion and gay marriage, and the war on drugs. The failure of the war on drugs is obvious to me. I wondered why he didn’t see it.

“First, get serious about restricting the amount of illegal drugs coming into this country. … I refuse to accept defeat by simply legalizing it.”

To me, that wouldn’t be accepting defeat. That would be proclaiming individual liberty.

If the repeal of unjust laws constitutes “accepting defeat,” did the repeal of Prohibition represent defeat? Defeat of what? Americans drank before, during, and after the 18th Amendment, just as they used drugs before the drug war and continue to do so now. The only people who are defeated by relegalization of formerly legal substances are the people who profit from the illegality along with those are paid to prosecute and imprison their fellow citizens.

Cain is a businessman. He has to realize that illegal drugs are a big business because of simple economics. Illegality means artificially high prices on low-worth substances. He has to know that. So why would he want to help guarantee huge profits for criminals and cartels?

As to an economic argument for keeping drugs illegal, I am unable to come up with a sound one, other than that the drug enforcement economy would suffer. But that is another artificial economy created by government, as is that of the illegal suppliers.

Government creation and stimulation of an illegal economy is simply bad business. To not recognize that simple fact, but to go on throwing good money after bad, constitutes accepting defeat. That’s because in economic terms, the drug war is inherently a defeat. We are creating and funding our enemies.

I think that refusing to continue to fund an enemy is not an accepting defeat, but rejecting defeat.