The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Libertarians: Did Semi-Decriminalizing Drugs in 2020 Reduce Murders Like You Theorized?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Libertarians often blame America’s high murder rate on drug laws. In 2020, though, drug laws were either repealed or not enforced much due to covid, BLM, defund the police, etc.

So, what happened?

Murders went up 37.9% over 2019 in urban American.

Criminologist Richard Rosenfeld’s report for the National Commission on Covid-19 and Criminal Justice — Pandemic, Social Unrest, and Crime in U.S. Citieshas a useful graph showing the decline in drug arrests. He’s using a smaller sample of cities than I have for my comparison of homicide totals in 2020 to 2019, but he has weekly data for a variety of crimes.

Drug offenses include arrests for the manufacture, sale, or possession of illicit drugs. The weekly drug offense rate exhibited a downward cyclical trend until the structural break in March of 2020, when the rate fell sharply and then fluctuated during the next several months. Overall, the drug offense rate between March and October 2020 decreased by 32.4% over the same period in 2019, dropping to a level far lower than at any time during the previous three and-a-half years.

The red line represents a “structural break” in March (i.e., social distancing, cops reluctant to get in perps’ faces for fear of infection, etc.).

In contrast:

Figure 1 displays the average weekly homicide rate in the 21 cities for which homicide data were available (see Appendix). There appears to be a rough cyclical pattern in the homicide rate over time. The model estimated a structural break at the end of May 2020, after which the homicide rate increased sharply through July. It then dropped through the end of October, though not to the level during the same period the year before. The average city homicide rate during the pandemic (March to October of 2020) increased by 32% over the same period the year before (see Figure 2).3 The homicide rate between June and August of 2020 (labeled “Summer” in Figure 2) was 41.9% higher than during the same months in 2019, and it was 34.2% higher in September and October (labeled “Fall”). There were 610 more homicides in the 21 cities in the summer and fall of 2020 than during the same period in 2019. Year-to-date (January to October), the homicide rate was 29% higher in 2020 than in 2019.


The red line represents a different structural break, this one in the last week in May: i.e., the George Floyd memorial summer of pillage and mayhem.

One question is how much of murder in 2020 is driven by the kind of business logic that Michael Corleone would recognize and how much is driven by stupid interpersonal beefs that Sonny Corleone would recognize? Jill Leovy, the L.A. Times’ murder reporter, emphasized the latter. Watching The Wire tends to give white people an inflated impression of how much black-on-black murder is driven by drug business rationality, when much is just idiots killing each other in lame squabbles.

But I don’t really know how to measure that.

 
Hide 185 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. JimDandy says:

    Legalizing pot definitely helped the MSM brainwash the populace into lazily getting on board with an authoritarian woke anti-speech agenda, so… way to go, libertarians.

  2. Anon7 says:

    Lack of drug enforcement, plus lots of leisure time and money not spent on vacations, provides an ideal economic climate for expanding drug empires.

    There is a lot of money in illegal drugs, and the marketplace is very competitive.

    Competition is, well, cutthroat. As we can now see.

  3. Lot says:

    Libertarians want you to be able to buy Monster Energy with Natural Guarana and Methamphetamine at CVS.

    Not arresting junkies and petty dealers while allowing NAM gangs and mafias to do wholesale isn’t what they want.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @SimpleSong
  4. @Lot

    I don’t whether decriminalization works. The logic says that what drug dealers need is legalization: i.e., that if your cocaine wholesaler tries to stiff you on delivery of 100 kilos, you can sue him in court and have the government force him to deliver your cocaine.

    In that world, you could buy 5 grams of Johnson & Johnson brand cocaine at Costco for $129.99.

    I’m not sure I want to live in that world.

  5. Mr. Anon says:

    There have been a lot of big money donors behind drug legalization initiatives – Bill Gates and George Soros, for example.

    It’s interesting, isn’t it? Just at the time when the neo-liberal masters-of-the-Universe are predicting the EoW (End of Work – massive unemployment due to automation) and when the COVID-depression is throwing millions out of their jobs, it becomes legal, and much easier, to turn on and tune-out. A stoned population is a docile population.

    Almost as if it were part of some plan…………..

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    , @danand
    , @Libre
  6. Mr. Anon says:
    @Steve Sailer

    In that world, you could buy 5 grams of Johnson & Johnson brand cocaine at Costco for $129.99.

    I’m not sure I want to live in that world.

    Ah, c’mon – it’ll be awesome!

  7. @Steve Sailer

    Probably more like $12.99. It is crazy cheap to manufacture small-molecule pharmaceuticals once they are 1.) legal and 2.) not patent protected. Cocaine would be as cheap as Tylenol. I think hospitals buy fentanyl wholesale for less than a dollar a dose.

  8. @Lot

    While not all amphetamines are neurotoxic, methamphetamine is. (E.g. association with increased rates of Parkinson’s dz.) Should it still be in CVS because freedom?

  9. Sometimes I feel like this blog is written by Fredo Corleone.

  10. Whitehall says:

    So no more hanging out on street corners where transaction are visible. It all went underground and out of sight.
    That’s another plausible cause of a decline in drug arrests.
    Add in that arresting certain population segments that don’t want to be arrested and it is just not worth the extra work and possible trouble to make drug arrests.

    • Replies: @JMcG
  11. @SimpleSong

    In 1885 you could buy Cocaine Toothache Drops for 15¢ each.

    Bayer used to hold the trademark to both aspirin and heroin, so we could go back to the future and give them cocaine as well.

  12. As Steve Sailer moves on to putting together Monday morning’s Taki Mag essay accounting for some abstruse, almost asperger point, in the cascading molten lead spray from the angle grinder of America’s collapse, as the brightest lights of a generation go out, all over Twitter town, Sailer himself impervious and ironclad from any and all repercussions, ensconced in his clothes cupboard from which presidential campaigns are born.

    Trump was, as Mike Enoch said to Tim Kelly, the best and most worthy points of disenfranchised White Americans given the worst representation as if just to be presented for a beat down.

    Trump coagulated the bleeding heart of a fast moving distant past of a White America which had stood atop the world at the ruin of the West in WWII, alone to spend the next 3 decades feasting on the fat of 2 millenium of White Western Christianity till the last ravenous hordes stood at the Capitol baying for bones only to meet with the iron fist of their new overlords.

    Betrayed. Adrift. Alone.

    Steve Sailer will still produce his Taki Mag essay. The Derb will come up with another post berating the Irish. Vdare moves on like a glacier in a collapsed climate changed landscape evaporating into nothing but steam and empty air.

    “The world revolves like ancient women, gathering fuel in vacant lots.”

    (Quit all forms of alt-right and start thinking socialist. Throw overboard the grifter booksellers and carpetbaggers. Act locally, think socially. Be White)

    • Replies: @Pat hannagan
  13. One thing is certain: The “War on Drugs”®️ has been good for the Police State and Weapons industries.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Franz
  14. @ScarletNumber

    Bayer used to hold the trademark to both aspirin and heroin, so we could go back to the future and give them cocaine as well.

    Nah. Purina needs it for Puppy Chao.

    • LOL: bomag
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  15. @Mr. Anon

    Didn’t Jerry Pournelle have that in his CoDominion series?

    • Replies: @Skyler the Weird
  16. Steve Sailer:

    “Libertarians often blame America’s high murder rate on drug laws. In 2020, though, drug laws were either repealed or not enforced much due to covid, BLM, defund the police, etc.”

    Fist of all, drug laws are very much being enforced. My neighbor’s kid, only 16 years old, was tried an an adult and sentenced to 10 years with probation for carrying a couple grams of meth.

    Secondly, libertarians do not defend drug legalization on any grounds of social impact it might have(positive or negative), but on the grounds of indivfidual freedom to live one’e life as one sees fit, without being coerced by Society and the armed branch of Society, the government. Libertarians hold that people that rob and kill others for drugs should be harshly punished. Libertarianism gives you absolute freedom to use whatever drugs you want, with the caveat that, if you become addicted and harm/kill others, you will be punished severely for it. That is, absolute freedom but with absolute responsability. Most people are not able to live their lives acccording to this Kantian principle.

    The alternative to liberatarianism is the conservative solution to the drug problem. That has been tried before, with mostly negative results. Was Prohibition successful? No, it made the Mafia grow exponentially in power and created massive government corruption. Then, there was the “War On Drugs” declared by conservative President, Ronald Reagan, in 1980, and which continues to this day as no liberal President had the courage to end it and be accused on being soft on crime. So how has the “War On Drugs” be going? Billions of Dollars spent, millions of people locked up in the past 41 years, the lives of millions of youths ruined with long prison sentences for being in possession of small quantitied of drugs for personal consumption. Many of those young men, who had never hurt anyone and just wanted to have some fun, were butt raped in prison and wasted the prime of their lives in a prison cell because of your hero, Ronald Reagan.

    The issue of drug liberalization is not one that is entirely settled by libertarians. There is consensus among all liberatarians that mild drugs like marijuana, shrooms, benzos, etc, should be legalized. However, when it comes to “hard” drugs like heroin, cocaine and meth, there is no consenssus.

    That is because the essence of libertarianism is volition and fee-will. These drugs are so powerfully addictive and destructive that they remone one’s choice. A radical libertarian would ague that you did have a choice originally: you knew that heroin was powerfully addicitve and that there was a high chance that you would get hooked and lose your free-will of choosing whether you want to continuu using or not. BUT radical libertarians hold that you did have the choice to use or not when you were free from addiction, knowing the consequences of trying, and you still chose to use it anyway. Your loss of free will from that point on was decided by your own free will! But there is no consensus among liberatarians regarding the “hard” drugs. If it makes you feel better, most libertarians believe that cocaine, heroin and meth should remain illegal, or at least have severely controlled used.

    • Agree: TontoBubbaGoldstein
    • Thanks: Mark G.
    • Replies: @anon
    , @Rob
  17. @Pat hannagan

    Ex alt-right need to understand it was always a honey pot and remember those names and sites who lured you into spiritual dead ends and a focus of local police if not federal investigation and infiltration.

    People like Greg Johnson, Vox Day and Bronze Age Pervert, to name a few.

    May they get their just deserts and may we overcome.

  18. Fun Fact: It appears people have been arrested for illegal marijuana possession in the legal recreational marijuana states. Why? Because druggies can’t afford to buy legal products, because the taxes on them are too high.
    WHERE IS THE ART LAFFER OF POT?

  19. danand says:
    @Mr. Anon

    “…a lot of big money donors behind drug legalization initiatives – Bill Gates and George Soros, for example.”

    “Oregon became the first state in the United States to decriminalize the possession of all drugs on Nov. 3, 2020.

    Measure 110, a ballot initiative funded by the Drug Policy Alliance, a nonprofit advocacy group backed in part by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, passed with more than 58% of the vote. Possessing heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and other drugs for personal use is no longer a criminal offense in Oregon.”

    “Almost as if it were part of some plan…………..”

    Could be a plan, or just dopes who are just completely out of touch/separated from the realities of the lives that may be destroyed through their efforts. My hope is that lives are not, destroyed, but the gamble is far from insignificant.

  20. @Pat hannagan

    Steve, surely at this epochal time in the history of your time on earth you could come up with something more substantial than your weekly focus on minutia, like, say, how what the world would look if Ramones got to play the song Springsteen wrote for them after Joey asked him

    Or, how the world would look if Americans didn’t worship you know who?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  21. AceDeuce says:

    Negroes don’t need drugs–the last thing you want to do is make them even dumber, lazier, and more erratically violent than they already are–plus it gives them one more thing to blow whatever money they have on.

    Of course negroes are as significant to America’s progress as a popcorn fart is to a hurricane, but millions of idiot Whites have essentially turned black in their habits and “morals”.

    And no, alcohol is not the same as drugs, not even pot.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  22. The bottom line of a lot of street drugs is that they are antidepressants more efficacious than the SSRIs doctors have been trained to prescribe. SSRIs were initially marketed as anxiolytics before the stigma against sedatives came about, so they were renamed.

    The best course of action is to get over the irrational fear of dopamine and expand the list of available drugs for stress and depression.

    • Agree: Charon
  23. Most people agree that Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s had a bad effect of increasing crime, so that is important precedent for the libertarian argument here. But legalization is not the same thing as weak law enforcement. The latter is what we had this last year and that is always bad. When the law stops going after violators while remaining on the books then your average salesman is not going to rush into the business as competition for the shady thugs. Instead the latter will simply expand operations with impunity.

  24. Upper middle class professionals don’t want their teenage kids to have a lifelong criminal record for selling a little pot to their friends, meanwhile the underclass lives in a drug-addled fog in neighborhoods policed by violent drug gangs.

    Meanwhile the multinational corporate sponsors of the Supreme Court are figuring out the best drug strategy to reward their shareholders.

    Really it is all Prohibition and Repeal all over again. Some countries seem to manage to have a reasonably civilized alcohol drinking culture, but it is very hard to think of any country that has a civilized intoxicating drug culture.

    • Agree: Kyle
  25. Watching The Wire tends to give white people an inflated impression of how much black-on-black murder is driven by drug business rationality, when much is just idiots killing each other in lame squabbles.

    (By the way: one of the great things about The Sopranos was that they combined the two: much of the intricate political machinations amongst the gangsters was driven by idiots wanting to kill each other in lame squabbles.)

    I realised something about The Wire the other day. You know white saviour narratives? The naive middle-class white engages with the authentically vulgar ghetto black, and, after an amusing period of culture clash, the two gain a mutual respect; at the end, the white is either inspirationally uplifting to the black or tragically unable to help him, and in either case, attains authenticity themselves.

    This was cliched and hokey in 2003 (and is probably racist by now) but The Wire got away with it by shunting its white saviour narratives onto its black characters (mostly – Pryzbylewski was white): Bunny Colvin, Sgt. Carver, the good journalist in the fifth season, and Cutty all fit the mould, and arguably Stringer Bell, Proposition Joe, D’Angelo Barksdale, Greggs, and Bunk too.

    I wonder whether this was an accident or a very clever way for the writers to have their cake and eat it too. For all their show’s supposed gritty realism they were just your basic pie-in-the-sky liberals fantasising about being Michelle Bridges in Dangerous Minds.

  26. @JimDandy

    Maybe “legalise it” was just a good way to sucker in teenagers

    It was amazing how easily the libertarian arguments about freedom of speech got selectively picked up by the left, and are now being used to squash freedom of speech

  27. Sailer, you need to start pulling your weight.

    You’ve long been the hopeless anglo alcoholic with the begging hand at the end of every month reaching out for donations from a disparate fan base given over to pity.

    Like Jack Karouac everyone assumed you were on the road and about to surmount some metaphysical lyrical obstacle, which, metaphorically overcoming, would set us free.

    But you’ve done none of it!

    Week in and week out is some banal autistic discrepancy with the prevailing orthodoxy!

    Ffs Sailer get it together and be what you at one time intimated what you could be

    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
  28. @Anon7

    Lack of drug enforcement, plus lots of leisure time and money not spent on vacations, provides an ideal economic climate for expanding drug empires.

    Counterpoint: there were several downward pressures on demand:

    1. Increase in overdoses, every one a lost customer
    2. Decreased socialising means less social drug use
    3. Closure of nightclubs etc, which must have meant a calamitous drop in demand for uppers

  29. theMann says:

    1. Maintain prohibition: massive corruption and the criminalization of an entire class of people results ; meanwhile, the wealthy take all the drugs they want.

    2. Decriminalize all drugs, you step over the drug sodden losers.

    3. Poison the drug supply, you “solve” the problem, albeit at a high cost.

    The desire for intoxication is a persistent human flaw, it has no good solution. BUT, until you commit an actual crime, you know, something with a victim at the end of it, it just isn’t a legitimate government problem. And the entire War on Drugs has always been a deliberate war on our Constitutional Rights.

    • Agree: Charon, Mark G.
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  30. Altai says:

    OT: Steve’s favourite under mainstream radar right-wing nationalist, Sacha Baron Cohen chimed in. Bufalo guy needs to die but IDF soldiers who commit war crimes?

    It’s surreal to see all these people who denigrate patriotism sperg about ‘traitors’.

    If a bunch of black people as goofy, old and unarmed as these momentarily stormed government buildings, no, they wouldn’t have been shot. Because the they never showed any ability or inclination to fight. These things have happened in lots of countries and even in highly repressive ones, they don’t gun them down they call reinforcements and kick them out or arrest them.

    They realise that it is a form of political protest and that gunning civilians protesting the government (Which usually indicates a serious level of support among the public) down in the parliament is a very bad look and one that will backfire.

  31. El Dato says:

    They realise that it is a form of political protest and that gunning civilians protesting the government (Which usually indicates a serious level of support among the public) down in the parliament is a very bad look and one that will backfire.

    This is not an aspect that has bubbled up all much yet. But yes. The Kent State University shootings gave bad optics half a century ago.

    How many of the people that got shot at then are the New Authoritarians now?

  32. @Anon55uu

    A black friend at my high school ran 9.5 hand-timed (probably ~9.70 electronically timed) in the 100 yard dash in 1976 to finish second in Southern California. He got a track scholarship to UCLA and became an architect.

    A white friend in the market research industry ran a 9.9 in high school. He was an extremely good centerfielder on the company softball team.

    The world record is 9.07 by Asafa Powell of Jamaica. Houston McTear ran a hand-timed 9.0 in the mid-1970s in high school and an electronically timed 9.30.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_McTear

  33. @Pat hannagan

    Why did I know that “Johnny” was Johnny Ramone?

  34. @Pat hannagan

    “Hungry Heart” is an annoying Springsteen song, but it’s would have been a good Ramones song.

    • Agree: Redneck farmer, Not Raul
  35. Charon says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Yes and it’s important to distinguish between crime and murders, which Steve fails to do here. I don’t recall anyone saying that murders per se were related to prohibition or legalization.

  36. Charon says:
    @Steve Sailer

    A black friend at my high school ran 9.5 hand-timed (probably ~9.70 electronically timed) in the 100 yard dash in 1976 to finish second in Southern California. He got a track scholarship to UCLA and became an architect.

    Someone really should have warned him.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  37. @Pat hannagan

    Why did I know that “Johnny” was Johnny Ramone?

  38. One of the last things Lennon said before he was shot was praising Hungry Heart as a great track. Along with Mcartney’s Coming Up.

    I’ve tossed and turned it through my head and I wish I’d heard Ramones do it first. I have no idea how it would have sounded, brilliant probably, without all the Springsteen overproduced schmaltz, but like all their other songs sunk without a popular trace.

    The last thing Johnny Ramone said to Joe Strummer was that they’d reduced their set by 2 minutes.

    Same songs, just got that much faster.

    White Riot is basically a Ramones song. America was the birth of punk (contrary to all prevailing rock wisdom).

  39. Dumbo says:

    One thing is to favour certain things in abstract, another much different is in practice. In this sense, radical Libertarians are exactly like leftists.

    The acid test is, would you as a Libertarian be happy with your teenage children using heroin, cocaine, meth? Woudl you be comfortable with your daughter becoming a whore or a porn actress to pay for her fix?

    Or would you tell them that it is not good?

    A better approach than promote total freedom and let people sink and swim is to try to apply what is good at the family level, to the whole of society. A sort of Christian Libertarianism if you will – you’re free to do things that are good for you, not so much to do things that aren’t.

  40. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @ScarletNumber

    What is the libertarian position on glowing radium jewelry? You used to be able to buy that too

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  41. @Charon

    Let me warn would-be architects: don’t become an architect unless all your grandparents and some of your great-grandparents are still alive. You make your biggest income in your 70s or 80s, so if you only live your three score and ten, you and your heirs are out of luck.

  42. Murder is more related to a culture that promotes killing for being ‘Disrespected’ rather than the Drug Trade.

  43. @Redneck farmer

    The Expanse TV show and Books have a form of it. The UN provides Basic Income and Drugs

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  44. @Steve Sailer

    “Watching The Wire tends to give white people an inflated impression of how much black-on-black murder is driven by drug business rationality, when much is just idiots killing each other in lame squabbles.

    But I don’t really know how to measure that.”

    You seem to know how to measure about everything else Stevie boy. Trying to be coy with your readers is not very becoming of you.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  45. @Patrick McNally

    HBD > rationalism/libertarianism

    Maybe libertarianism could have worked in say, pre-multicult Denmark. But once you’ve added tribalism (back) into the equation, it’s goodbye to all that.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
  46. @Anonymous

    I had a glowing radium dial watch when I was about 8.

    That probably explains a lot.

    • LOL: Kyle, Redneck farmer
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    , @Known Fact
    , @JMcG
  47. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Is the pot/heroin/bath salts social cost actually higher than the orderly, mundane, equally profitable Rx opiates’ social cost? Before new crises were fashioned there were plenty of bad legal behaviors like making left turns against traffic and not getting [x] hrs of sleep every night. You are straw-manning the legalizers’ trade-off argument into a wonky, efficiency-based version that is rare on the ground AFAIK. Not many are claiming regulated weed sales will improve us into a more productive and virtuous society, because it’s an obviously silly thing to say. Admittedly libertarianism is consumed with frivolity, apart from the pragmatic issues of policy.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @bomag
  48. @Pat hannagan

    The Ramones played two concerts in London in July 1976. The first was on July 4, 1976. I think the second just after the Bicentennial was the one that the Sex Pistols and Clash attended. It would be cooler if they’d gone to the Bicentennial show. But close enough for bocci ball and hand grenades.

    https://mashable.com/2016/07/04/ramones-fourth-of-july/

    • Replies: @Pat hannagan
  49. @Jim Bob Lassiter

    Saying “But I don’t really know how to measure that” is a request for suggestions of how to measure that.

    I like measuring.

    • Agree: Not Raul
    • Replies: @Rob
  50. @Skyler the Weird

    I didn’t get very far into The Expanse. What’s the message?

    Similarly, I tried to start watching Jonathan Nolan’s “Westworld” in the middle of the second season and got exhausted by its intellectualism.

    On the other hand, the 4th season of Mike Judge’s “Silicon Valley” is still great.

    There are a lot of crypto-rightists in Quality TV.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  51. El Dato says:

    OT: Old icons of pre-post-WWI socialism die hard. I’m not sure how to think about that.

    Berlin police clash with left-wing protesters during rally marking murder of communist icons Luxemburg & Liebknecht

    March called off due to COVID.

    Can we ever find peace?

  52. @Steve Sailer

    I think at the latter Clash were let in by Johnny who advised them “we’re shit just play”

    Yeah, that’s the one.

    From that same concert spawned Sex Pistols whose next concert spawned Joy Division

    (Peter Hook claims he came up with the low strung guitar which became synonymous with “grunge” but clearly it can be seen Johnny Ramone was the first)

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  53. @Pat hannagan

    If I remember his 1990s NR material correctly, he is what he seemed to be.

  54. @Pat hannagan

    I ran into Joey Ramone and his mom standing on a corner eating ice cream cones in Greenwich Village in August 1982. “Joey, I’m your biggest fan!” I exulted, which he seemed to find acceptable but lame.

    • LOL: Kyle, bomag
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    , @Not Raul
  55. @Steve Sailer

    Not long after being Phil Spectored which Joey loved and Johnny hated, much like Lennon and McCartney.

    Spector at one point made Johnny play the one chord 90 times.

    I admire Johnny for his rick hard will and resolute sense of direction.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
  56. @Steve Sailer

    Cocaine and heroin probably need higher taxes, like tobacco, alcohol, and sugar do, to suppress excessive consumption. However, living in Japan, a random country where you can’t get all the pharmaceuticals available in the US, I can tell you that having your pharmaceuticals restricted is annoying. I limp around with a bad knee, unable to get ibuprofen, when shit Japanese drugs like “Loxonin” are available OTC or Voltaren is available by prescription but makes me sick to my stomach.

    The issue is not freedom–there the answer is clear: if you want to ruin your life with heroin, go for it. The issue is public health–can you ruin other people’s lives or fall back on social welfare? There we start to run into many problems, but not unlike other issues like alcohol or COVID. The answer has to lie in compromise and regulation without outright bans on anything.

  57. We had governors and mayors systematically ordering police to stand aside while mobs rampaged and attacked people out of racial hatred or political animus. We had the mass media, government, and as always universities and government (“public”) schools whipping up white-hot, um, black-hot hatred of and aggression against police more than ever before.

    We then had police react by pulling back from seriously patrolling and intervening in already violent chaotic, crowded African neighborhoods across the country. We would expect that to substantially drive up murder rates in those areas, and apparently it has.

    We also had voters, sensibly, passing initiatives in November that end state-level marijuana prohibition, allow very limited home cultivation, and require those states’ governments to develop a system of regulated and taxed sales to people age 21 and over. Those didn’t pass until November and weren’t certified until December, and the actual end to prohibition didn’t take effect until January 1st, 2021 (New Jersey, Montana, Arizona) or July 1, 2021 (South Dakota). None of these initiatives passing would seem to have any effect in increasing murders or any kind of violence before their effective dates. (They won’t tend to increase violence after their effective dates, either, but we are talking here only about the increase in murders in 2020.)

    As for lessened enforcement of statutes criminalizing adult marijuana use/sale in 2020, it is unclear why we would logically expect that to increase murders.

    As for lessened enforcement of statutes criminalizing the possession/sale of harder drugs in 2020, why would we guess that that played a role in the 2020 murder spree when a more logical, obvious, and direct explanation is at hand? That would be the simple fact of the police refusing to seriously patrol and intervene in extremely violent, volatile, crowded African neighborhoods.

    I recovered from libertarianism some years ago. But this snarky attempt to blame lax enforcement of drug prohibition for increased murders is a non sequitur. The superior explanation is that this is just the same old angry, poor, fatherless, drunk and heavily drugged (with drugs purchased illegally over these decades of prohibition), relentlessly murderous population running wild when they’re allowed to run wild.

    In any event, it is hardly only libertarians who support decriminalizing marijuana or more dangerous drugs. If it were, the pot legalization initiatives never would have passed, and the state/local governments would not think they can get away with more lax enforcement of statutes against more dangerous drugs. There just aren’t many libertarians, self-identified or otherwise, in the USA.

  58. @JimDandy

    The government is taking away even more of our liberties than before, and the reaction is, “therefore, let’s not restore freedom in this other area”? Hardly compelling reasoning.

  59. @Anon7

    You have a point there because so many people gullibly believe whatever is repeated to them often enough by “authorities” and have easily been scared into cowering at home.

    As for our family, though, we have spent more time and money travelling our country in the past half a year than ever before. Partly to research where we will move when we flee California, partly justly to get to know new corners of our beloved country and have fun.

    Cheaper airfares and hotel rooms, better traffic flow for road trips, less crowded at the attractions and restaurants that are open (albeit each destination features a pretty depressing and pathetic bunch of brainwashed, face-diapered people glaring and jumping off the sidewalk like freaks to avoid coming near other human beings). And we know enough friends and relatives who have resisted the plandemic hysteria, so we visit and in some cases stay with them.

    For most of the people who have not yet lost their jobs / businesses and do not especially anticipate losing them soon, this is an excellent time to travel (domestically). We need some semblance of normal life and liberty, however limited, and the hotels, restaurants, museums, churches, etc. at the destinations desperately need the money.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  60. AceDeuce says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Alcohol has been used in civilized and uncivilized societies alike for thousands of years. NO, I repeat,no civilized First World society has had widespread marijuana, cocaine, heroin use. Weed has been prohibited since the 1930s in the U.S. 99.8% of White people didn’t use it in 1940, 1950, and I’d bet in 1960. So evidently prohibition does not automatically cause illicit use as a reflex action.

    Whites became whiggerized starting in the 1960s

    • Replies: @SimpleSong
  61. Mike Tre says:

    “Libertarians often blame America’s high murder rate on drug laws. ”

    I’m not disagreeing with this, but by what measure do they arrive at this conclusion?

    “Watching The Wire tends to give white people an inflated impression of how much black-on-black murder is driven by drug business rationality, when much is just idiots killing each other in lame squabbles.”

    Good point. Kind of like how The Sopranos tried to frame carjackings as negro errand boys doing the bidding of the Italian international stolen automobile cartels:

  62. @Steve Sailer

    I’m not sure I want to live in that world.

    Americans already have though!

    I’d have no problem with that, were we in a nation of 1950s Americans. I do agree with your point that the drug laws are used to nab lots of black people that would have gone on to do plenty of other crime, often violent. You have a good point on that, Steve, but it’s not a real argument in principle against the Libertarian view of freedom to imbibe what one wants.

    Think of the lesson learned from the 13 years (that’s all it was) of alcohol prohibition. The lesson was that making dealings illegal makes more prone to violence and causes less respect for the law. At least the Americans of 100 years back had the decency to admit that a Constitutional Amendment was needed to ALLOW the Feral Gov’t to have any authority in the matter. Of course, one of my favorites*, Amendment XXI was used to put the kibosh on that travesty.

    Let the hard core druggies get help from family or kill themselves quickly, without a lot of robbery and shooting in between.

    .

    * Subsequent to the Bill of Rights, the Amendment process has been pretty much a big fail, per Peak Stupidity (scroll down), but then, we are only up through 24 in our reviews, so here’s hoping…

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Matt Buckalew
    , @bomag
  63. Wilkey says:
    @JimDandy

    The powerful at the top who are backing marijuana legalization are doing it because they hate you. They want to control you. They want you to lay around high all the time, never worrying about all the rights they are taking away. They don’t want you to have children (pot use, by the way, is very bad for your swimmers – seriously).

    They want you to use pot because they view you as the enemy.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    , @Anonymous
  64. Travis says:

    Most Libertarians understand that Drugs need to be fully legalized, not decriminalized , to end the drug cartels and drug gang distribution networks. The DEA still has operations in these states to investigate and arrest those selling and trafficking drugs. Decriminalizing drugs does nothing to reduce the federal enforcement of our narcotics laws and the cartels and dealers must enforce their deals with violence, since they are prohibited from conducting their business legally. Until drugs are legalized, the drug cartels and drug dealers will require the use of ruthless violence to stay in business.

    alcohol was basically decriminalized for personal use during prohibition. People were able to legally consume alcohol and possession of alcohol was never outlawed. The 18th Amendment only forbade the “manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors”—not their consumption. By law, any wine or spirits Americans had stashed away in January 1920 were theirs to keep and enjoy in the privacy of their homes. Some affluent drinkers built cavernous wine cellars and even bought out whole liquor store inventories to ensure they had healthy stockpiles of legal booze. It was still perfectly legal to have a party and supply your guests with beer, wine and whiskey during prohibition. drug stores were allowed to sell “medicinal whiskey” to treat everything from toothaches to the flu. With a physician’s prescription, “patients” could legally buy hard liquor. This pharmaceutical booze often came with doctor’s orders such as “Take three ounces every hour for stimulant until stimulated.” Many speakeasies eventually operated under the guise of being pharmacies, and legitimate chains flourished. According to Prohibition historians, windfalls from legal alcohol sales helped the drug store chain Walgreens grow from 18 locations to more than 500 during the 1920s. American doctors earned $450 million for whiskey prescriptions during the prohibition. yet despite booze being decriminalized for personal consumption the crime associated with the alcohol cartels and their gangs escalated during prohibition. We should not expect the violent drug gangs to stop their strong-arm tactics when drugs are decriminalized.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  65. Gamecock says:

    I’m for freedom.

    My rights aren’t subject to whether 32% more people are murdered. Can I have my rights at 25%? Do I lose them at 50%?

    The legalization of drugs didn’t happen in 2020. It has been happening for years. And simple correlation is a logical trap.

    BWTM:

    Four days ago, our fine host was declaring the increase in murders was due to

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/was-2020s-huge-murder-surge-due-to-pandemic-or-to-blm/

    Today, it’s drug legalization.

    Continuity, please, isteve.

  66. Are non Hispanic whites and Asians murdering more? My guess is no. The murder rates are still related to the thug life of lower IQ’s. Nor does BLM help. So we could blame a gay black movement more than libertarians.

    • Agree: Not Raul
  67. It’s worth noting that the US DOJ never stopped enforcing drug laws in 2020. They put out 4,121 enforcement notices in 2020, down from 5,068 in 2019 but up from 3,378 in 2016. The feds handle a big percentage of local drug arrests. Even in June, when the country was going up in flames, the feds were still aggressively prosecuting people. For example, on June 30 they arrested 23 gang members in South Carolina for heroin and coke trafficking, part of “Operation Broken Branch.” On June 25, 11 members of the Brooklyn-based Bully gang got pinched. And so on.

  68. Kyle says:

    I’ve never watched the wire but I did go to public school. Black People are just insane. I think the lockdowns led to idle hands & idle minds. Then George Floyd led to a hands off approach to law enforcement. Then everything boiled over from there.

  69. Dan Smith says:

    One of my pandemic diversions is watching reruns of The First 48. Last night: guy in apartment is selling weed. Gets phone calls from customer. Opens door, customer and accomplice shoot him dead. Hard imagine this not happening when weed dispensary charges five times as much.

  70. Rob McX says:
    @Steve Sailer

    It gave you cancer? I’m glad it wasn’t fatal. Life without iSteve would be so much poorer and duller. Meanwhile, refrain from buying any “genuine Chernobyl souvenir rock”.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  71. Lot says:
    @SimpleSong

    You can get bottles of Aspirin for 1.99 with 60 325mg pills. That works out to a little less than 10 cents per gram.

    The main recreational drugs might not get quite that cheap, but certainly could. They’d be made in China and India.

    SE Asia has problems with cheap methamphetamine pills smuggled from China, or made locally by Chinese gangs with Chinese precursors. Even with all the markups because they are illegal, the pills sell as low as 50 cents.

  72. Templar says:
    @ScarletNumber

    In 1885 a US Army private was paid $13 a month… Which is about 43 cents a day.
    So your cocaine drops would have been quite pricey.

  73. Kyle says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    I agree that the underclass lives in a drug addled fog. But are you ever going to be able to stop that? Ultimately that’s a symptom of being poor and depressed. All poor people smoke cigarettes, you’re never going to stop that, they do it because their lives suck. No middle class proles smoke anymore, there’s a social stigma against it. The only other people who smoke are ultra wealthy people who don’t care what you think about them. They enjoy the quick buzz, but they aren’t constantly chain smoking like poor people because they aren’t depressed and they have other things to do.

  74. @theMann

    Excellent comment! Thank you, the Mann. As for the post itself from a man who loves his stats and social theories, do you think this correlation implies causation here, Steve?

    I think you were quite right that the disparagement of the men in blue via all those defund demands was what caused cops to stand down and let more black on black (with innocent bystanders) killings increase. Whether they were over drugs or being dissed is not really important. Black ghetto thugs like to be like that. They’ve got nothing else.

  75. @Pat hannagan

    I’m Coming Up was a lame-ass tune compared to anybody’s stuff, much less some of the great tunes from Sir Paul McCartney. Here’s one. Know it, Pat?

  76. anon[152] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rockford Tyson

    If it makes you feel better, most libertarians believe that cocaine, heroin and meth should remain illegal, or at least have severely controlled used.

    Please to be providing us with the requested citation.

  77. anon[152] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Americans already have though!

    You’re a lot older than I thought. What was the war with Spain really like? Did you vote in Michigan last election?

    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
  78. @Rob McX

    I remember in the 1950s you used to be able to buy vials of radium glow-in-the-dark paint from the Johnson Smith novelties advertised in the comic books. “Glowed like hell” when the bottle was accidentally spilled on the floor.

    https://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/radioluminescent/sunraytouchupkit.htm

    • Thanks: Rob McX
  79. National Commission on COVID 19 ..

    Crap.

  80. Anon[116] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist

    If drug users just quietly used their drugs and didn’t bother other people, legalization would not have been a problem. But drug users often do other things that spill over on nonusers that are criminal and insanely annoying.

  81. donut says:
    @Steve Sailer

    I’ll just pretend I’m an architect .

    • Replies: @anon
  82. @Achmed E. Newman

    America as a nation recognizable to my ancestors that staggered off the mayflower and rejoiced in a new world ended with the revocation of Prohibition. A nation in which women were consulted but not empowered.

    Replaced by a nation of loutish people with long names and short tempers who were out maneuvered in less than a decade by a tiny race of people with long names and long but white hot tempers. Both united in treating women like dog shit to the point were feminism became inevitable. The Anglo-american world is the only culture that even tried to make space for women without giving away the store- prohibition was part of that project but too many Irish and Italian people were too addicted to booze and truculence.

  83. @JimDandy

    In Northern California high-grade marijuana can be sold legally and for a decent price at a strip mall near you. In Gavin Newsom’s Northern California one must descend into the black market to get a haircut. With that said, I’m quite pleased I can obtain primo weed legally because it saves me the hassle of gunfights with blacks.

  84. @Steve Sailer

    This is why some say we are just a silly country.

    Obviously some drugs are bad and should be illegal.

    If we just paid a bounty on drug dealers, we could nearly eliminate the whole drug scene is a year or so. It could be based on how much drugs are recovered. Rewards need to be large. Then enroll the dealers in some program where they “earn” a living preaching against drugs. Since most drug dealers are guys, the salaries need to be significantly better than minimum wage. It is better than giving welfare to unwed mothers and creating another generation of fatherless children.

    We need relentless propaganda making drug use as evil as racism and tantamount to racism because blacks disproportionately are arrested and incarcerated, blah, blah ….

  85. Anon[140] • Disclaimer says:

    Decriminalizing drugs is not a well-thought-out idea. It’s like the plan to send everyone to college and give them easy home loans, because people with college degrees and homes do well. Which is true, when that meant you were in the top 10 or 20 percent of the population by intelligence and conscientiousness.

    If drugs are decriminalized, the IQ 70 knuckleheads that earn their living from illegal drugs will not be the ones selling legal drugs, and they won’t suddenly decide to work at Walmart, so they are going to find something else illegal to do to support themselves.

    • Agree: SimpleSong
  86. tyrone says:
    @Redneck farmer

    Gee wiz where have we seen anything like that before…..hmmm……I got it!! …moonshine!

  87. Anon[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    A black friend at my high school …

    Is this a humblebrag, or humblebrag-adjacent? “Yeah, I may be on the SPLC website, but my best friend is a black guy.”

  88. @Patrick McNally

    But legalization is not the same thing as weak law enforcement.

    It seems that when there is enforcement, drug dealers spend time in jail while their competitors are out selling drugs. If those dealers were not in jail, they would be shooting or being shot by their competitors. So, lax drug enforcement could lead to more murders.

  89. @Reg Cæsar

    Mitch McConnell’s face is a surrealist masterpiece. I keep hoping it will drip to the floor. Mitch is also a dummy: his blockage of stimulus payments to people who’s livelihoods have been destroyed by government action helped deliver the two senate seats in Georgia to the creepy lil’ Zionist and the boring angry black man. What is also dumb is Gavin Newsom’s edict closing down businesses deemed non-essential like my favorite costume shop. Now I have no place locally where I can find a monocle for my ventriloquist partner (“dummy” is a pejorative and discriminatory term and He won’t let me use it).

  90. @Steve Sailer

    Perhaps the reason that people think architect is a lucrative career is that it is the archetypical white collar job that everyone understands. So much so that I can name two TV parents who were architects: Mike Brady on The Brady Bunch and Elyse Keaton on Family Ties. Seinfeld made fun of this trope by having George pretend to be an architect from time to time, when he wasn’t pretending to be a marine biologist.

    In addition, the whole raison d’etre of Indecent Proposal is that the Woody Harrelson architect character is broke.

  91. Anon[348] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pat hannagan

    Musical taste is like IQ. When you’re young, your IQ reflects a mix of environment and innate ability. But when you’re old, it’s nearly all innate ability, and environmental influence has declined to almost nill.

    Ditto music. Your tastes as a teenager are a reflection of your innate tastes plus the music you get subjected to. But when you’re old, you just choose to listen to what you innately like.

    Therefore, if you are a Boomer who grew up liking the Beatles because that’s what got played on the airwaves around you, but you’ve become a boring old fogey who only listens to jazz, world music, and your old Grateful Dead tapes, you have an innate musical IQ of 80, and were always a fool with innately lame tastes.

  92. @Pat hannagan

    I have no idea how [Hungry Heart] would have sounded, brilliant probably, without all the Springsteen overproduced schmaltz, but like all their other songs sunk without a popular trace.

    It’s worth noting that Bruce Springsteen never had a number one song as a performer, but wrote Blinded by the Light, which Manfred Mann’s Earth Band took to number one. He also wrote Because the Night for Patti Smith and Fire for the Pointer Sisters.

    Speaking of Patti Smith, here she is singing You Light Up My Life with Joe Brooks, the songwriter, on the piano. Brooks ended up being a creep and died in prison in 2011.

  93. @Steve Sailer

    “What’s the message?”

    You’re looking for a message in a scifi TV show?

    “exhausted by its intellectualism”

    You don’t like messaging in scifi TV shows?

  94. Mark G. says:
    @Almost Missouri

    HBD > rationalism/libertarianism

    People tend to believe in one or the other but believing in both HBD and libertarianism would enable someone to come up with better public policies. You would have some immigration but there wouldn’t be open borders. There would be an attempt to apply filters that would only let in immigrants who are an asset to and not a burden on the country. If you understand HBD, that would help you in coming up with better filters to use in deciding who can come in.

    The Founding Fathers were pretty libertarian by the standards of today and they also seemed to have a better understanding of racial differences. Many modern day libertarian Americans have dropped their racial beliefs and many modern day American racialists have dropped the Founders belief in freedom and small government and it has left both groups worse off.

  95. @Steve Sailer

    Well if you ever make it to New Jersey, Joey Ramone is buried in Lyndhurst, where you can see the Meadowlands and NYC. Perhaps Dave Pinsen can take you there. Keep in mind that his tombstone says Jeff Hyman, but it does make reference to his Joey Ramone alter ego.

  96. Libertarians: Did Semi-Decriminalizing Drugs in 2020 Reduce Murders Like You Theorized?

    I think we should come to the unfortunate conclusion that libertarians really just wanted to do recreational drugs and used any manner of silly arguments to yield such a result.

  97. @Redneck farmer

    “WHERE IS THE ART LAFFER OF POT?”

    Coming up with the first iteration of the John Phillips Curve.

  98. @Wilkey

    Long-term regular pot use didn’t stop me from working hard, succeeding in my career, and siring a goodly number of healthy children whom I raise with my wife. But I must admit, you have a point as to the wider population.

    I was raised with time-tested and practical moral values, and an example of a work ethic and respectful / respectable public behavior to follow. Whatever my parents’ inadequacies or mistakes or vices, they provided enough structure, love, discipline, and guidance to keep me close to the right track. I was able to party in college but still get my studies done well, then get my work done well and on time, despite taking a liking to marijuana early on. I had that support, and those expectations about my attitude and performance, to a large and increasing number of kids do not have today — certainly including white middle-class kids.

    Now take children who are raised by less attentive and less traditional parents — I didn’t say ‘evil’ parents, just parents sho have been slowly but surely declining in their own standards — themselves watching tv all the damn time. Now these parents let their kids swim in a sea of media encouraging an entitled, disrespectful, lazy, anti-tradition, anything-goes attitude, glorifying unrealistic slothful luxurious living, unearned arrogance, and perversion. Seems logical that many of these kids will not do as well as I did when you throw early regular pot use into the mix.

    Nor will such kids maintain sufficient industriousness and self-restraint when they are warehoused from age 5 in schools now thoroughly captured by misfits and political / sexual / racial extremists who teach them that nobody should DARE tell them how to live or what is right other than what feels good in the moment. (My public schools, despite being in liberal northern new jersey near new york city, were decidedly NOT yet like that in the 70s / 80s. From people who teach in those exact same schools or have kids attending there, we know that those schools are very different places now.)

    In short, I strongly oppose jailing people for using marijuana, so long as they don’t involve people under 21 in any way. I was glad to see NJ, AZ, MT, SD legalize an adult marijuana market. But I share some of your concern for the effect of ubiquitous marijuana use in our current context of Slouching Towards Gomorrah.

    The later in life people start using marijuana, the better. Not in their teens or even in college, ideally. People who sell or give pot to people who are too young should still be punished.

  99. @Pat hannagan

    Thank you for acknowledging the Forest Hills Fab Four as the fons et origo of punk. There were obvious antecedents (see Clinton Heylin’s From the Velvets to the Voidoids), but the sound that the world hears today, and says, “aha! Punk rock”? That came from the Ramones.

    But don’t be so hard on yourself. You guys gave us Radio Birdman, and that’s a gift that never stops giving.

  100. bomag says:
    @Anonymous

    Is the pot/heroin/bath salts social cost actually higher than the orderly, mundane, equally profitable Rx opiates’ social cost?

    That’s the general claim of regulators. I’ve read several defenses of prohibition that cite a net gain from reduction of various social pathologies ( work absenteeism; domestic violence; etc.)

    Society is chock full of rules, historically from religion; village life; home life. I harbor a small suspicion that Libertarians harbor a strong personal code; lobbying for rule reduction in general favors them over their brethren who flounder without strong institutional guidance.

  101. Rob says:
    @Rockford Tyson

    When it comes to cocaine, I would favor legalization of coca leaves. So you would be able to but coca teabags or coca checking tobacco, but not refined cocaine. Coca leaves chewed with a base (I think) are said to cause a mild pleasant high. Certainly Andean peasants have had coca leaves for a long time with no great harm.

    [MORE]

    The real problem with drugs is how awful life has become for the bottom of society. Sure, life was harder in the past. People were short on food, babies and young children died a lot. But life was not awful. People grew up with both parents. The ones whose paren(s) had died were usually raised by relatives in communities where men were expected to provide for their families, not bust a cap in someone over disses. They lived near their kinfolk, usually. Family isn’t always great, but they give life meaning.

    Maybe you have a health problem. It may be fixable today, if you have good health insurance. If your back is so broken that you can’t function well enough for long enough to navigate the Byzantine healthcare system. If you don’t have insurance, and your back is too broken to get and keep a full time job, you might never get it fixed. Knowing your problem could be fixed, if anyone wanted to, might be worse than knowing it could not be fixed. People are atomized enough from family, and families are smaller today, so people have fewer people who will help them. Friendships might be more transient today. Certainly Facebook-caused lifestyle competition was not as bad as it is today.

    Economically, sure farm kids, especially kids of people who didn’t own land, had hard lives. But the field hand new where his next meal was coming from. He did not have to piece together an ever changing array of temp jobs. People were poorer, but before consumerism became the reason for being, not having something maybe did not feel like death. Certainly talking to people, even with less wealth, people were happier, to here old people talk about it. Maybe that’s survivorship bias.

    Even the middle class, what’s left of it is fairly atomized. Their families are scattered across the country. The neighborhood associations that used to be common are now dead. People find community online. Everyone seems to go crazy when they have to type out their thoughts. QAnon has replaced the elks club. Because of the decline of community and the separation by IQ, people who are not very intelligent don’t have anyone in their life who can help them navigate modern life.

    Whatever you think of the left and the managerial state, the Right is far too crazy today to make a reasonable government and society. The speed with which bad ideas can spread around to dumbs and followers is astounding. When the cognitive classes had more organic contact, there were people who could stop very bad ideas. A Twitter pile-on might look huge, but only be 1,000 people who themselves won’t remember the incident in a week.

    The treatment of women, gays, and blacks was much worse in the past. In most ways their lives had improved. But treating them badly is the main tradition conservatives want to bring back.

    Back to drugs. Drugs are very isolating. Either you are enmeshed in a druggie subculture, which separates you from normal people, or you are isolated from both normal people and druggies. Either way, when you quit, you lose all your friends and acquaintances. So quitting drugs is physically painful, because of dependence; mentally painful, because of addiction; and socially painful because of cutting all social ties. All that makes drugs very hard to quit.

    People start doing drugs because they are unhappy for one reason or another, and with how broken down society is, there a lot of unhappy people. I don’t think libertarianism would make society less harsh. I don’t think any sort conservatism traditionalism will help either. Breakup would be terrible, but how can we function as a society when we won’t build infrastructure or manufacturing. We have huge amounts of low wage, almost certainly low ability workers. We will specialize in low wage labor. We will be bifurcated into an a cosmopolitan, fairly high IQ elite, and a lumpenproletariat. That is not a health society, though it does seem to be the norm. Especially as the neoliberal party will turn millions of people into citizens every time it gets power. They’ll come as temps and illegals for booms every time a Republican is president.

    To sum, drugs are a big problem, but terrible culture and society is the driving force. Anything we do about drugs will be a bandaid. What we need to do is… I have no real ideas. The problem is so far gone, and freedom is our way. I would hate to get rid of social media. Stopping immigration would help. If that collapses the house of cards, better sooner. When I was 16 I would have looked on society collapsing as a great adventure.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  102. anon[331] • Disclaimer says:
    @donut

    I’ll just pretend I’m an architect .

    Don’t let it take too much time away from your career in marine biology.

  103. bomag says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The lesson was that making dealings illegal makes more prone to violence and causes less respect for the law.

    Dunno about that as a general rule. We prohibit all kinds of stuff: you can’t sell an auto engine without onerous pollution controls; you can’t sell unregulated gmo crops; child porn; slavery; et al.

    Seems to be a component here of what the ruling class wants.

  104. Muggles says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Well Steve, the world you live in now is much worse for you than making certain drugs regulated like alcohol instead of a black market product.

    Your charts seem to all rise about the time harsh pandemic lock-downs were mandated. That suggests different causation. That plus anti police policies and mass antifa rioting.

    Your presumptive question about murders and legalization (or personal use tolerance, not legalization of hard drugs) lacks any serious data about causes of murders, before and after.

    Marijuana is what has been deregulated in a few states, not hard drugs. Growers of that domestically (illegally from what I have read) still shoot rivals at times. Users and retailers in those deregulated areas have no need for murder or violence. That’s the point.

    Without data on drug “related” killings there is no basis for analysis. People still rob liquor stores and commit killings when drunk. Libertarians or drug legalization advocates don’t claim that will be a panacea.

    I suspect pot-only street retailers no longer seek to control local markets with violence, if they ever did. Except for Seattle and Portland, other drugs are still illegal to sell, distribute or manufacture everywhere else. Again, there needs to be data.

    The Mafia violence during alcohol prohibition ended when prohibition ended. Same idea for other substances currently illegal. Cartels would be increasingly limited to dealing still prohibited high potency meth or opiates like fentanyl. Illegal moonshine was still made/sold after prohibition ended.

    Black markets for popular products lead to vendor violence. A few months of legalized pot in a handful of cities during the pandemic can hardly provide meaningful data for violence reduction.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  105. Rob says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Well. Maybe use drug prices for the drugs blacks sell? Lower prices means a freer market, means less profit, so there will be more competition between dealers, which means more murders. It is a very noisy measure though.

    I think even drug violence is greatly exacerbated by black culture and personality differences. Things white or Hispanic dealers might work out peacefully gets blacks shot. But maybe I’ve mostly had very reasonable hookups? Social differences between users, too. For one thing, fewer blacks have cars, so dealers want to have ‘territories’, not drive their asses around all day delivering. Do people still do open air drug buys? I would hope a lot has moved to the dark web. That will make buying drugs safer for users and dealers alike. If open-air drug markets are still a thing, territory becomes doubly important.

    If street-level drug prives are inversely correlated with murders, that would be a hint. Both could be caused by other factors, though.

  106. Rob says:

    Some drugs being sort of legal or available online might cause more murders. Cheaper drugs and slack demand does not mean all the dealers are going straight all of a sudden. Tighter belts means harsher competition for market share of the drugs remaining illegal. Maybe taking pot out of the equation makes dealers edgier?

  107. Libre says:

    Steve, makeup your mind.
    Was it the lockdowns that increased murder?
    Was it the BLM riots and police withdrawal that increased murder?
    Now it’s decrim that increased murder?

    Did murder rise in white areas with decrim?
    Were murders occurring left and right before we heroically banned drugs?

    Come on, man!

  108. Libre says:
    @Steve Sailer

    That world is called every bar in Colombia. Just have to ask.

  109. @Redneck farmer

    18% THC pot goes for $3.00/gram here in Oregon. Where is it priced so high that it is unaffordable?

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  110. Libre says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Has it being illegal stopped half the population from using it? Will it being legal suddenly make millions start tokin up, as I’m sure Stevie did in his youth?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  111. @ScarletNumber

    What exactly are those children doing? Was the internet not working that day?

  112. Just a simple thought experiment:

    Take one of your libertarian screeds about how drugs should be legalized and regulated because muh freedom.

    Take one of the cultures that is currently taking over the world, either economically or demographically. For example, the Han Chinese, observant Muslims, Mormons, the Amish. Historical examples are OK too, for example Victorian-era Europeans.

    Now imagine how well one of these screeds would go over in one of these ascendant, victorious cultures.

    Only decadent cultures on their way out would tolerate such spergy stupidity.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  113. @Steve Sailer

    Probably safer than a bb gun — at least you won’t put your eye out!

  114. @SimpleSong

    Decades before The Wire or The Sopranos, an especially hilarious scene from a 1972 Mission Impossible has Phelps convincing ambitious mobster William Shatner that a rogue scientist has perfected a process to make dirt-cheap synthetic coke.

    The phony scientist is played by the dopey looking Willie (Peter Lupus), but he’s wearing a white lab coat and there are all kinds of tubes, buzzers and blaring red lights in the lab, so Shatner buys it. After, of course, the stereotypical moment where he tastes a little with a delicate finger.

  115. Franz says:
    @The Alarmist

    One thing is certain: The “War on Drugs”®️ has been good for the Police State and Weapons industries.

    They really are two peas in a pod.

    Till the modern state, there were no “illegal’ substances” and no drug problem.

    In 1914, suspiciously the same year the Federal Reserve was being instituted, the Harrison Act made “dangerous drugs” illegal. It’s namesake Mr Harrison died a heroin addict.

    The Volstead Act (1919, alcohol) was actually a success in that most people obey laws. For many years after it was repealed, alcohol was the chief abused drug and cause of misery in the US. Books were written; movies were made. The most famous movie was The Lost Weekend (1945) with the fine Welsh actor Ray Milland. The picture won Ray an Oscar and he once told an interviewer he had nightmares for years getting into the role then back out again.

    So why, if it was a success, was the Volstead Act not simply reinstated? Because politicians were wise enough (then) to realize (a) it’s a public health problem and (b) bootleggers got so wealthy during prohibition that they nearly run North America from the Rio Grande to the North Pole. The Canadian Bronfman family were the chief beneficiaries. Via mountain trails in the west and the Great Lakes ore ships east, they made billions and they, and others like them, became richer than the average nation.

    Before the junkie Harrison died, his prohibition took narcotics from statistically negligible a century ago to a permanent crisis. World War II was the kickoff.

    Because the “greatest generation” can’t be questioned, the postwar hipsters remain unmentioned. Even so, it was veterans coming home who brought hashish, more powerful narcotics, and all starting in the late 40s. They also started biker gangs, which grew and spread their habits right along with the Interstate highway growth during the fifties.

    It’s odd this postwar fact has been covered up because people used to know it. Marlon Brando’s movie, The Wild One, was based on the Hollister riot in California in July of 1947. Even the actual riot is now said to have been sensationalized by the media, but we had family in California and very specifically told us “Hollister was where the Hell’s Angels were born”. And there was plenty of dope.

    Between the bikers and fifties beats, a few big cities had both narcotics and weed by the time Kerouac became famous in 1957. This was the Zero Year for drugs. Had the media not been bored and gave this tiny number of freaks an entire decade of publicity, nothing would have come of it. When you consider that 1957 was also the year of Atlas Shrugged, Sputnik and the US Navy’s atomic sub it’s ironic, in an ugly sort of way.

    So that’s how we got here. How out?

    If the media can create a problem let them destroy it. When they made bikers & beats the boogeymen in the 50s, they made it attractive to tons of misfits all over the country. Look how BLM grew with each televised “peaceful protest” and imagine it going on for over 70 years and the answer pretty much jumps out at you.

    In the end, the “dangerous substances” are not going anywhere. Celtic and Sarmation warlords were buried with opium poppies for centuries because they are a useful tool. Pain can keep men from doing their duties. Remove the pain and you’re 100% again. Alcohol has medicinal value also. Cannabis was used quite legally in Victorian England for menstrual cramps and stomach troubles.

    Making these things illegal is a power grab whether y0u are libertarian or not. One year’s statistics against thousands of years of human experience is not going to change that.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
    • Replies: @anon
  116. Muggles says:

    Take one of your libertarian screeds about how drugs should be legalized and regulated because muh freedom.

    Take one of the cultures that is currently taking over the world, either economically or demographically. For example, the Han Chinese, observant Muslims, Mormons, the Amish. Historical examples are OK too, for example Victorian-era Europeans.

    Now imagine how well one of these screeds would go over in one of these ascendant, victorious cultures.

    Authoritarian regimes of the past and present all try to impose certain rules and personal life choices onto their populations. Fascism and Communism were both very anti drug (though the Wehrmacht kept front line troops on meth, as was Adolph.) The USSR mainly manufactured incurable alcoholics. So no, no “screed” about personal choice would very popular.

    Your line of logic suggests that the US should emulate intolerant dictatorial governments or strict religious practices. But religions only work on the willingly obedient. No one is advocating forcing people to use alcohol or drugs. Victorian-era Europeans flooded a weak China with opiates, which were also widely used in America and Europe at the time for all kinds of things. Until the early 20th century there were few if any “anti drug laws.” So that’s your example of good, clean living?

    The argument on legalization (and some regulation for children, behavior and extremely potent drugs) is harm reduction. The US (practically alone, other than Saudi Arabia even now) tried to prevent the ills of drunkenness and alcoholism with prohibition. Didn’t work out, caused far more harm than good.

    Tobacco use in the US (and in some European contexts) is still legal but greatly diminished by education and social concern for health. I’m old enough to remember the “happy drunks” of comedy and TV and the incessant promotion of smoking. Now largely gone.

    If you believe that “Han Chinese” or “observant Muslims, Mormons, Amish” are the wave of the future, include me out. I doubt you would be happy in that future either. To ascribe these as “ascendant and victorious” is myopic at the very least. Tiny Hong Kong scares the Xi regime silly. Who is rushing to live in CCP China? Ditto the Caliphate or Amish country. Utah is okay but becoming a religious cultist as you imply is hardly the wave of the future. Mormons are pretty clannish.

    Criminalizing sin and bad choices just creates more crime. Virtue can be taught and encouraged but it can’t be mandated. Too much stupidity and recklessness is baked into the human condition for that to ever work.

  117. @Muggles

    Excellent comment, Muggles.

    • Thanks: Muggles
  118. Not Raul says:
    @Pat hannagan

    Whoever produced this track should be shot.

    Such an interesting vocal performance buried under Muzak.

  119. Not Raul says:
    @Steve Sailer

    He probably appreciated it; but thought it would make him look uncool if he smiled and waved.

  120. Eric416 says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Anyone who wants to get 5 grams of cocaine can easily get it now. They’re just getting El Chappo or Nine-Trey Bloods, or Sons of Somethingorother MC brand instead.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  121. @Muggles

    “If you believe that “Han Chinese” or “observant Muslims, Mormons, Amish” are the wave of the future, include me out. I doubt you would be happy in that future either. ”

    We wouldn’t be, which is why we have to win. Paleoconservativism understands that while the masturbatory individualism of lolbergtarianism does not.

  122. Ian Smith says:

    I used to believe that muh drug war libertarian crap. There are countries like Japan that have very strict laws about drugs and yet have very low murder rates.

    Libertarians are often extremely provincial Americans (libertarianism is mostly an American thing and essentially unheard of outside of the Anglosphere.) Libertarians assume everyone will behave like an upper-middlebrow well-to-do white American because that’s what most libertarians are.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Anonymous
  123. In 2020, though, drug laws were either repealed or not enforced much due to covid, BLM, defund the police, etc.

    I yield to no man in the magnitude of my contempt for “libertarians.”

    But really, Steve … was 2020 a simple, controlled experiment? Stop enforcing drug laws and let’s see what happens to the murder rate?

    2020 wasn’t a controlled experiment in anything. One thing there was no shortage of in the late, unlamented Old Year was confounding factors, no matter what you’re trying to study. Allow me to suggest that the King of the Confounders might be: Let’s sacralize negroes and make enforcing any laws on them a potential career-limiting move for any cop (black or white), and see what happens to the murder rate?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  124. @Reactionary Utopian

    It’s almost as bad of a natural experiment as David Card’s 1995 study of wages in Miami in 1980-1984 from which he concluded that because Miami wages didn’t go down after the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, that therefore immigration doesn’t depress wages in general. Economists have been debating this ever since, without any of them drawing any connection between Card’s results and the world famous Cocaine Boom in Miami during the Scarface – Miami Vice era.

    Or it’s almost as bad of a natural experiment as Steven Freakonomics Levitt arguing that because the murder rate was lower in 1997 than in 1985, that must be due to the legalization of abortion without realizing that the highest youth murder rates in American history were among black youths born right after Roe V. Wade due to the Crack Wars of the early 1990s.

  125. @Eric416

    My impression is that Costco could sell you legal cocaine at a lower markup than the Sinaloa cartel can deliver illegal cocaine.

  126. anon[338] • Disclaimer says:
    @Muggles

    Criminalizing sin and bad choices just creates more crime. Virtue can be taught and encouraged but it can’t be mandated.

    Seems legit.

    Why should murder be illegal, anyway? Everyone dies sooner or later…

    • Troll: Achmed E. Newman
  127. anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ian Smith

    Liberteenies are almost universally descended from Inner Hajnal Line WEIRD people. Because they tend to be blank-slate believers, they cannot grasp that their cultural and personal practices are not universal for all possible humans. That’s why US Libertoonies come up with ideas such as the “Free State” project, but they don’t grasp why such projects do not succeed. That’s also why Colorado libertonies voted for Hickenlooper – muh LEGUL POT! – yet were surprised by the magazine ban that came along with it. They didn’t really know what they were voting for.

    However, for some strange reason, I cannot recall any Liberteenians traveling to New Guinea to teach the NAP in the upland hill villages. Maybe no one ever suggested it to them?

    Hey, I’ll suggest it! All True Libertarians should travel to up country New Guinea and teach the Non Aggression Principle to the tribes there. Any survivors can report back on the experimental results.

  128. @Muggles

    >If you believe that “Han Chinese” or “observant Muslims, Mormons, Amish” are the wave of the future, include me out. I doubt you would be happy in that future either. To ascribe these as “ascendant and victorious” is myopic at the very least. Tiny Hong Kong scares the Xi regime silly. Who is rushing to live in CCP China? Ditto the Caliphate or Amish country.

    The fact that you believe that these places are uncool places to live is utterly irrelevant. I also don’t want to live in China or the Caliphate. No one one wants to move to these places and they don’t want outsiders to move in either. Their game is to hold their own territory and expand into ours. They are doing it successfully for a variety of reasons, one of which is because half our population sits on the couch stoned all the time and thinks that’s just fine.

    The fact that you think they are uncool places to live and don’t want to go there is a feature, not a bug, from their perspective. Your culture is losing. Get that through your head. You are a loser. I am a loser. We are losers. We are getting our clock cleaned by every conceivable metric. Economic growth, scientific output, cultural output, population growth, literally everything. This isn’t the 19th century anymore. We are losers. We are going into the dustbin of history. I’m sorry if that makes you want to self-medicate.

    > But religions only work on the willingly obedient.

    Have you ever traveled outside the United States? Are you familiar with the typical practice of religion before the 20th century? Willingness ain’t got nothing to do with it in most times, and most places.

    >Tobacco use in the US (and in some European contexts) is still legal but greatly diminished by education and social concern for health.

    Nope, wrong. Education and social concern about the dangers of cigarettes was tried by the well meaning for decades and got nowhere. There were anti-smoking campaigns dating back to at least the 1910s and surely earlier and rates of smoking increased during this period. While people didn’t have large epidemiologic studies on the dangers of smoking it was pretty clear to anyone sentient that it was habit forming and caused health issues.

    These earnest anti-tobacco educators were arrayed against extremely powerful corporate interests who were very good at muddying the water about the health issues involved, and very good at tweaking their product to maximize both its addictiveness and its availability. (The alcohol industry is also very good at this, and the legal marijuana industry is going to be very good at this as well.)

    So how did smoking actually get marginalized? The government brought the hammer down through regulation. First, on advertising. Then, they taxed the hell out of cigarettes. Then, there were bans on smoking in public places and then indoors.

    In other words, the government brought the hammer down with a soft prohibition. Education did nothing, except insofar as it inspired a few activists to get the government to regulate the hell out of the industry. That’s my point. The idea that we can count on the majority of people to make ‘good choices’ that maximize their own happiness, if only they are educated, (which is the basis of the libertarian mindset) is empirically false.

    >Criminalizing sin and bad choices just creates more crime.

    So does criminalizing murder create more murders?

    Look, my position is this: each psychoactive and addictive substance should be evaluated on a case by case basis, weighing both 1.) potential benefits to the individual, 2.) potential harms to the individual, 3.) potential benefits and harms to society as a whole 4.) the autonomy of the individual. 5.) general caution when the full long term effects of substance use are unknown.

    Some addictive substances (coffee, for example) in this schema end up with light or no regulation. Some end up with moderate regulation. Some end up with very restrictive regulation. Some end up completely banned.

    This approach is diametrically opposed to libertarianism, which posits that these choices should be left up to the individual.

    • Agree: utu
  129. @Pat hannagan

    Hey, McRapey, stop wasting your time here. Get back to work on your novel.

    • Replies: @anon
  130. MBlanc46 says:
    @Anon55uu

    None of them look Australian to me, unless they’re Abos.

  131. Anonymous[399] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wilkey

    Kamala Harris was perfectly fine with pot prohibition when she thought it was a vote-getter. So I model it as them supporting whatever is more popular at the moment.

    You can call the stoners degenerates all you want, I sympathize, but it won’t change their minds. It will however push them into the arms of whoever will give them their fix, and the Left will do that eagerly.

    If we were in a position of security, we address the issues of the stoners frittering their life away high, the fatasses who need to get on a treadmill, etc. But we’re not. This isn’t 1962 anymore. We’re not fighting ‘subversives,’ we are the subversives.

  132. @bomag

    In Florida you can’t sell venison.

  133. Anonymous[127] • Disclaimer says:
    @Muggles

    Fascism and Communism were both very anti drug (though the Wehrmacht kept front line troops on meth, as was Adolph.) The USSR mainly manufactured incurable alcoholics.

    They talked the talk, but the USSR found alcohol to be quite the money-maker. Look at what they did, not what they said.

    The US (practically alone, other than Saudi Arabia even now) tried to prevent the ills of drunkenness and alcoholism with prohibition. Didn’t work out, caused far more harm than good.

    But it did work. Alcoholism death rates went way down. Not that we should try it again or anything, see my reply to Wilkey. But it’ll certainly work. How much alcoholism do they have in Saudi arabia?

  134. @AceDeuce

    Two anecdotes from my life:

    Two of my favorite nephews were quite successful in life and ended up in very cognitively demanding fields. Their dad (my brother) though a very nice guy had pretty much spent his life in a dead-end, pointless, bureaucratic paper shuffling job, which nonetheless was pretty much at the limit of his abilities.

    One day when they were grown I was chatting with the two of them and they sorta elliptically asked about their dad, and how they had done so well from such humble origins, and what I thought of that. I think they were actually hinting about non-paternity, or perhaps that there wasn’t really any hereditary basis for intelligence? They were bright enough to tell that something was strange about their situation and wanted to see if I had an opinion.

    I told them they were old enough to know the truth, their dad had been a really bright driven guy in high school, but had gotten into marijuana big time in his senior year and basically spent his entire 20s constantly stoned. He cleaned up before he met their mother in his thirties, but he was never the same guy. But they reminded me of him, actually, a lot, or what he was like before.

    All the time, to anyone who will listen, my brother says, “I used a ton of drugs in my 20s and it didn’t stop me from holding down a job and raising two great kids, MJ is harmless!” Probably he’s taken it up again now that it’s legal-ish.

    Second anecdote: I knew this anesthesiologist at one of the hospitals I operated at that seemed to really drink too much in social situations. And there were a couple of times when he was on call and the day ended and then we got unexpectedly called back and he came back and it seemed to me he might have had a drink when he got home. But not raging drunk or anything. And I wasn’t sure. I sorta mentioned it to his chair, if he had any clinical problems, and he said no, they were actually pretty careful about tracking people’s complication rates, he wasn’t an outlier. A few years I hear through the grapevine that he had a big time screw up that killed somebody and lost his license. I guess he was OK, until he wasn’t. If only he had been more knowledgeable about psychoactive substances he would have made better decisions!

    No man is an island.

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
  135. Anonymous[368] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ian Smith

    I spent some years in the libertarian movement. I didn’t like feminists, didn’t like bible thumpers, and so I kind of landed there by default. It’s certainly incorrect to say that libertarians assume everyone will behave like an upper-middlebrow well-to-do white American. A major motivation for the ideology is the knowledge that a great many people don’t behave as such and a desire not to have to subsidize their stupid behaviors.

    • Replies: @Ian Smith
  136. Exhibit A: Why statistics and damned lies are the same thing.

    Whether they enforce laws against junk or not, you still got to go to a dealer to get it.

    What world do you live in?

  137. JMcG says:
    @Whitehall

    Yep, all done by text now. The eighties crack wars were pre-internet. Nobody is hanging on a corner with weed stashed somewhere anymore. Now you text your dealer for heroin or oxys and a Mexican ( around here, anyway) rolls up in a beautiful pickup to deliver.

  138. Mr. Anon says:
    @Libre

    Has it being illegal stopped half the population from using it?

    No, but a lot of people use it some when they’re young, then give it up as they get older. When you own assets and have commitments, you can’t afford to be on the wrong side of John-Law, even in little things.

    Will it being legal suddenly make millions start tokin up,………..

    Very likely, yes. There’s a difference between occasionally using pot and habitually using it. The fact is, Prohibition worked – it actually did suppress consumption of alcohol. That doesn’t mean I’m for it – I’m not. I’d like to go back to the pre-WWI era when a lot of drugs were legal, and yet most people didn’t use them, but I’m not sure we can. I am against the War on Drugs, which was used to rob us of our civil liberties (although they don’t need the WoD for that anymore – they have the WoT (War on Terror) and WoP (War on Pathogens) for that now).

    The question remains – can you have a functioning society when a lot of people are stoned a lot of the time? I doubt it – not if those people have responsible jobs. On the other hand, if the people who are stoned are the permanent underclass, unemployed and living on UBI, and destined for soft-genocide – well, yes, you probably can.

  139. JMcG says:
    @Steve Sailer

    My buddy has an air speed indicator out of an old B-25. Well he had it until it was pointed out to him that the dials on those old instruments were painted with radium. He checked it with a Geiger counter, the result of which made him blanch. So add that to the list of hazards those Second World War pilots faced.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  140. Anonymous[290] • Disclaimer says:
    @Travis

    Prohibition was a last gasp attempt by the Anglo-Saxons to retain their control over the country that they had pioneered (with very high death rates) and settled. To a strongly believing Protestant, alcohol or other drugs were a distraction from leading a holy life, demonstrating one’s worthiness by being a hard working steward of God’s creation. Same thing with marijuana. Some drugs, most notably tobacco, were considered vices but not serious ones as they seemed to help in being a good steward. To other Christian faiths, worthiness was following priests who were, after all, trained in and dedicated to God’s ways. Alcohol was a fairly harmless drug that made daily life easier (and, as it turned out, prevented many water borne diseases). The non-Christian faiths seem to have been indifferent to stewardship, although other considerations seem to have suppressed drug use.

    Protestant attempts to convert non-Protestants to their way of life (making friends out of enemies) failed conclusively during the Prohibition era. Prohibition only succeeded in capitalizing organized crime. There was much money to be made in transportation and distribution of alcohol. Note that “historical America” is Angl0-Saxon America.

    The non-Anglo-Saxon European derived immigrants also appear to have been unable to hold US territory against subsequent waves of immigration, and have permitted the industrial civilization established by the Anglo-Saxon population to wither, much as the Russians permitted the industrial civilization established by Stalin to wither once WW II was over [1]. We may see the same thing in China, which also regards governmental political/military goals as primary, but not for some time, not until China’s investment in building a military/industrial base ends and the base is actually used.

    By the same token, the non-Protestant European derived immigrants are unable to make friends with the new waves of immigrants, and the drug wars appear to be a simple repetition of Prohibition. They provide capitalization for criminals who transport and retail various drugs, no more and no less.

    The above sets the stage for a general abandonment of industrial society, which we are seeing now. When .4 to .5 of your population cannot work productively in an industrial job, the response of a the remaining .6 to .5 of your population will still care for them, which overhead makes industrial society uneconomic. The society, as in sub-Saharan Africa, will gradually devolve into a non-industrial society in which the .4 to .5 can at least contribute something to their upkeep. Cheap and low productivity labor keeps capital goods uneconomic [2].

    1] Note that Chief of State Putin has revived the military – industrial sector of the Russian Federation, not the civil sector. The RF is now like an Italy with a best of class nuclear strike force rather than the USSR’s similarity to Mexico with a best of class strike force. The RF still does not value its civil sector, and its inhabitants seem quite content with devaluing civil production as long as “everybody has a fiddle”, to use slang from England. Different populations want different things out of life, and, despite the Left, do not claim that more consumer goods either are or should be their primary goal.

    2] Note that Asian territory to the East of the Urals has fallen into this demographic trap more than once. Once human labor becomes almost free (reduced to the cost of minimal food, shelter, clothing) incremental labor saving devices become hard to develop, and are viewed by most as “taking food out of the mouths of the hungry”. The Meiji Revolution imported Western industrial and intellectual methods, but before Perry had been caught in the above demographic trap that made innovation nearly impossible.
    Example: In England at one point the guild of pin makers were using a dry stone method to grind pins. Pin makers died at an early age from dust inhalation. A “wet stone” method was developed that captured dust in a water stream, eliminating the health effects. The guild of pin makers was resolutely opposed, saying that once pin-making (a low skilled job) became safe, the flood of new volunteers to make pins would depress the pin-maker’s wages. This astonished many Englishmen of the time, so there are ample records of the event (this from a source I read several decades ago — if you doubt the story, try looking up references yourself, or simply disregard it, all up to you).

    And, of course, the same demographic trap took out the US after the Gilded age. For the way that England escaped the demographic trap, see: Gregory Clark, _A Farewell to Alms_, 2009-01-18. The escape would be a blood chilling story to most people now alive. For England’s descent into the demographic trap since 1870 or so, see Edward Dutton’s works.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  141. @bomag

    It’s not as big a deal to people, Bomag, to have reduced gas milage, etc. Some, of course, understand the reason for the controls, but then others go get their chip “cracked”, re-flashed, or whatever word they use for re-programmed to get around this. There’s not enough money in it to encourage violence by illegal “flashers?”, and then the black thugs wouldn’t get involved because “too hard”, haha.

    Tell people they can’t relax with a joint (trust me, it’s not me, I never got anything out of it but mild paranoia) or go buy a beer, and they see this as a greater encroachment on freedom. I would agree too.

    I guess there is that component – what the ruling class wants us to do, but it doesn’t apply to them – think Al Gore and his mansion on the coast of California and travel around the world.

  142. @Anonymous

    “The non-Anglo-Saxon European derived immigrants also appear to have been unable to hold US territory against subsequent waves of immigration”

    That’s a good question. My impression is the opposite: the Anglo-Saxon tendency is, when demographically challenged, to head for the frontiers and cede the original territory. The Catholic immigrant groups seem to be better at hunkering down and holding on to their cities. But I’m generalizing from a possibly wrong stereotype I have of Detroit as a mostly Anglo-Saxon white population and Pittsburgh as a Catholic white population.

    • Replies: @Anon
  143. @p4nc4k3s Pl34s3

    California and Washington buyers of marijuana pay total retail taxes of 30-36% and 37%, respectively. And prices are not three bucks per gram in California, but often ten dollars per gram.

    Check online, as well, the prices at the pot stores in Massachusetts.

  144. @SimpleSong

    So we should conveniently ignore the triumphant ascendant peoples who allowed widespread alcohol intoxication?

    Beer and vodka, respectively, didn’t seem to stop the Germans or the Russians from conquering (though the degree of alcohol abuse certainly ended up greatly lowering the life expectancy of Russians, especially men, and harming their economy and society) — thankfully that has improved somewhat recently).

  145. Sailer, where are these libertarians who predicted that “semi-legalization” would reduce murders?

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  146. @Kyle

    I used to practically chain smoke. It was ridiculous how many cigarettes I would go through during a day. It wasn’t because my life was bad, it was because I started smoking at 17 to be rebellious and cool. then later I found it quite difficult to quit… although I eventually did.

    Likewise I drank FAR too much alcohol in my 20’s, but not because of depression or misery. I just liked feeling drunk, particularly the part where you can laugh loudly at anything. I also eventually gave that up; responsibility and maturity run counter to inebriation.

    Stop making excuses for people, Kyle. We know how to behave ourselves, we just choose not to.

  147. @RadicalCenter

    I’m surprised it took until #59 for someone to point out all the “novel” causes of violence lately that have nothing to do with drugs. Decriminalization did not happen ceterus paribus, folks.

  148. @JMcG

    This sort of calculation by US government personnel is why the meters on the venerable R-390 HF receivers were removed and then tossed away.

    A real waste of American history into the garbage bin.

    Various Uses of Radioluminescent Paint

    The April 1920 Issue of Scientific American noted that more than 4,000,000 watches and clocks had been produced using radium-containing radioluminescent paint. The following items were identified in the article as containing radioluminescent paint: house numbers, keyhole locators, ship’s compasses, telegraph dials, mine signs, steam gages, pistol sights, poison bottle indicators, bedroom slipper buttons, furniture locator buttons, theater seat numbers, automobile steering-wheel locks, luminous fish bait, and glowing eyes for toy dolls and animals.

    Estimated Doses

    NCRP Report 56 indicated that the estimated average dose equivalent to the gonads of an individual wearing a radium-containing watch was approximately 3 mrem per year. The estimated dose from a watch containing 4.5 uCi of radium, a very large amount, would be 310 mrem per year to the gonads. Note that the associated risk here is much lower than if the dose had been the same over the entire body.

    In the previously mentioned study of pocket watches by the National Center for Radiological Health, measurements using TLDs and a human phantom indicated that the annual dose to the gonads was 60 mrem (assuming that the watch was worn 16 hours per day).

    Based on the results of one survey conducted in Tennessee, the average whole body exposure due to a radium-containing radioluminescent clock might be on the order of 7 to 9 mrem per year. Exposure rates to the head would be somewhat higher, possibly 5-10 times higher, because these are usually alarm clocks that would be positioned on a night stand near the head of the bed.

    https://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/radioluminescent/radioluminescentinfo.htm

    • Thanks: JMcG
  149. Reducing ‘law enforcement’ does not eliminate violent competition for the risk premium available in the markets for drugs that the Wowsers think we peons should not be allowed to ingest.

    To the extent that some murders happen during that violent competition, the key reason is the existence of the risk premium. Basically, some local hoodlum wants to a (State-like) monopoly on local drug trade.

    Reductions in ‘law enforcement’ have been primarily a reduction in the resources dedicated to targeting individual users and the bottom of the distribution system for weed. That’s not where the organised violence is: the organised violence is in the higher-margin products – meth, fentanyl etc.

    And murders over drug ‘turf’ (i.e., attempts to subvert competition in a local market for some drugs) has always been a trivial proportion of total murders. Most murders are personal: the proportion that happens directly because of the drug trade, is barely double the proportion that happen due to serial killers.

    iSteve‘s musing regarding how much murder is ‘violent competition for drug-related risk premium‘ versus ‘dumb motherfuckers with a personal beef‘ is on point, and my guess is that it’s 85/15 personal – even when the murder is in the ‘drug entrepreneur’ demographic.

    As for people who think that legal weed eliminated the black market: wake the fuck up. It costs so much to become a licensed grower, that a bunch of them in Humbodlt Co have decided they’re better off moving up the mountain and growing clandestinely. Legalisation is a mechanism to enable financialisation of the market, and the development of oligopoly power – just as tobacco is effectively an oligopoly with significant political clout, ‘Big Weed’ has its eyes on the prize… and it ain’t users, it’s access to credit markets.

    The primary benefit of legalised weed – for consumers – is the legality of growing one’s own plants. It’s very hard for licensed growers to compete with black market prices because of the humungous costs of compliance; it’s difficult for both licensed and clandestine growers to compete with home grown given that it’s easier to grow weed than it is to grow parsley.

    So there’s going to be some ‘margin compression’. It’s why organised crime[1] is not involved in weed in the US: the risk premium is too low (organised crime is very labour intensive)

    [1] By ‘organisd crime’ I mean in the commonly-understood sense of the term – i.e, men with slicked back hair and names that end in vowels, telling men with broken noses to ‘deal with’ competitors. (Outside of films, that type of organised crime has historically been dominated by the same (((people))) who brought you the Soviet Union).

    In reality, Wall Street is a primary global facilitator of ‘organised crime’, but not in the mafia sense: they don’t have to put horses heads in people’s beds.

    • Replies: @anon
  150. @Jonathan Mason

    Some countries seem to manage to have a reasonably civilized alcohol drinking culture, but it is very hard to think of any country that has a civilized intoxicating drug culture.

    The point is not whether you can have a ‘civilised intoxicating drug culture’; it’s whether you want a system that compounds the misery, and knowingly causes death among society’s most-benighted (because of variable product quality; adulteration; and the quest for high-potency as a way to reduce sell-side risk). Anyone who puts in place a system that predictably compounds harm to the already-downtrodden is a cunt and should be fed to pigs.

    Portugal has shown – since 2001 – that legalisation is the same thing as harm minimisation. All its indicia of harm have cratered since it legalised recreational use of pretty much everything. Even Portugal’s former drug warriors have been forced to admit that legalisation lived up to its promise, and had none of the effects that they (the drug warriors) claimed would eventuate.

    • Agree: Travis
  151. Anon[223] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    The Catholic Hispanics in CA seem to be pretty good at keeping out Blacks once dislodging them from their neighborhoods.
    I think CA is like 96.5% nonBlack among the youth these days, which is an exceptional accomplishment for a state that once had a sharply rising Black population.
    I think Whites should learn from Latinos how they kept their neighborhoods from being revisited with Blacks unlike so many White neighborhoods where it is a constant back and forth between the two groups.

  152. Make all drugs legal and you’ll still have orcs shooting each other over shoes and bein’ dis’pected.

  153. No reason to ask Libertarians anything since they are intellectually dishonest at the core.

    They in fact share an unspoken belief with socialists: we are right but our theories might not work as well with those people. It’s the unspoken belief that Blacks need different rules.

    Race denial is baked into Libertarianism. The whole thing falls apart once you accept race.

    Funny thing is that Rand made a closed borders exemption for Israel.

    All immigrants have equal potential unless they are headed for Israel. In that case the Jews of Israel can be collectivist.

    A dumb cult that even Rand didn’t believe in for Israel. As if legal crack and more third world immigration would improve things. Throw this cult in the trash with Marxism.

  154. MarkinLA says:

    Watching The Wire tends to give white people an inflated impression of how much black-on-black murder is driven by drug business rationality, when much is just idiots killing each other in lame squabbles.

    They aren’t lame by the code of the streets. If you have been dissed and you don’t respond you are a punk and a disgrace on the streets and you can’t have that even if it is over a joint he didn’t pay for. This is the same mentality in the prisons. It may not result in you getting shot but there has to be a response.

  155. @AceDeuce

    Correct. Alcohol is worse.

    • Disagree: AceDeuce
    • Replies: @anon
  156. Jake says:
    @JimDandy

    Libertarians are almost as unlikely as Marxists and Race-Obsessed Liberals to admit they were wrong.

    • Agree: John Johnson
  157. anon[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kratoklastes

    To the extent that some murders happen during that violent competition, the key reason is the existence of the risk premium.

    Is there a lot of that sort of thing in New Zealand? Do you see it out your window often? Just wondering.

    [1] By ‘organisd crime’ I mean in the commonly-understood sense of the term – i.e, men with slicked back hair and names that end in vowels, telling men with broken noses to ‘deal with’ competitors. (Outside of films, that type of organised crime has historically been dominated by the same (((people))) who brought you the Soviet Union).

    Hmmm…I’m not aware of any Mexican cartel bosses who are Jewish. If there’s any religious overtones to the cartelistas, they seem to be more fond of Santa Muerte, going by some news items over the last decade. But given your in depth knowledge of organized crime gangs obtained from your perch in Kiwiland, I’m sure you are correct and everyone else is wrong. Everyone else is wrong!

    PS: There’s a really good cash-only restaurant in Philadelphia that has some rather burly waiters. Their veal is excellent. The crucifixes on the wall are no doubt to cover up their actual (((origin))). Because there’s no such thing as mobbed up Italians, amirite?

    lol.

    • Replies: @AceDeuce
  158. @Rob

    This is a wonderfully thoughtful, earnest, practical comment not burdened by ideology, ignorance, arrogance, undue emotion, or wishful thinking. Can’t say the same even of all my own comments. Please comment more here.

    Ending mass immigration, and thereby ending the unsustainable increase in our population, would be an important factor in making people’s lives here less miserable. This is without regard to the race or culture of the immigrants, a separate issue.

    We have an ever-increasing population in the USA largely due to mass immigration, and this has nothing to do with “blaming” or “hating” immigrants of any background. This drastic increase in population comes in the face of evolving automation and artificial intelligence that will eliminate the need for more and more jobs currently done by human beings.

    That can lead only to more poverty — and not just poverty, but the quite accurate sense that one has little chance of getting out of poverty. With that comes constant fear about how to simply subsist, not prosper, a feeling that effort and persistence don’t pay off, and resentment at those ever fewer people who own and control the Earth’s resources and society’s resources and power. A feeling of pointlessness and no fair chance is a recipe for drug abuse.

    What about a population that is not ever increasing, and that eventually starts to gradually decline? That would decrease the number of people who lack the skills or aptitude to do the decreasing number of jobs not capable of being done well by machines, robots, or software. It could also restore some of the bargaining power — “leverage” — that the mass of people have against much wealthier, more powerful owners of capital.

    Speaking of the extreme concentration of wealth, resources, and power in fewer and fewer hands — and the hopelessness, anger, and material hardship that causes the majority of people in time — that will exacerbate drug abuse too.

    Without going to some extreme such as communism, we would do well to tax away the most extreme concentrations of wealth and power inequality and provide a guaranteed basic income and medical/dental care. This is unaffordable if we keep increasing the population of people who do not have, and are unlikely to attain, the abilities and skills needed to grab one of the diminishing number of jobs that pays for a decent life devoid of want and fear.

    We cannot afford to be as compassionate and generous as we need to be when the ratio of taxpayers to tax-consumers gets worse all the time. Progressives and labor leaders used to know and acknowledge this. Resources in this world, and in an economy, are not infinite, and promising something to an essentially limitless number of people leads to hyperinflation, poverty, and collapse. Drug abuse flourishes in those scenarios, as we are about to see.

    People who know they will never live like degraded filthy animals as “homeless” to be avoided and feared and stepped over in disgust, may be less likely to abuse drugs. Same when people don’t have to live in pain, limited function, limited mobility because they can’t afford needed medical care.

    Perpetual fear of starving or badly suffering from hunger or lack of medical care naturally leads to suspicion, tension and the use of theft, violence, and trickery to grab from someone else. This is true even if almost everyone is of the same race, speaks the same language, adheres to materially the same culture, and observes the same religious doctrines and practices. The tension and resentment of others will tend to be even more intense when people don’t have much in common to fall back on in terms of racial, religious, cultural, or linguistic identity, personal and family history, values, and affections. A balkanized society where one cannot trust, cannot even make small talk due to language and cultural barriers, will not tend to decrease drug abuse.

    If drug abuse is tied in substantial part to hopelessness, legal policies and cultural movements that spread traits, beliefs, and behaviors that furnish hope and a sense of purpose are in order.

    Specifically, encouraging belief in a loving, just God (though not necessarily a particular religion) would tend to furnish some sense of hope in the face of life’s challenges.

    Encouraging and creating social pressure in favor of long-term monogamous marriage and the raising of at least one child (not necessarily many children) would tend to do this too. For most people, there seems to be no adequate substitute for loving and being loved by a child, nor for the hope and sense of noble mission that can come from raising and sacrificing for a child. Nothing else seems to give most people a stake in the future of their society and the world like having one’s own beloved flesh and blood does. In turn, having a family to rely on materially and emotionally, however flawed that family may be, makes people feel less alone in the world, less likely to turn to drugs.

    In short: give people hope, a fair chance, freedom from deprivation, and stop forcing them into increasingly crowded, balkanized, untrusting environments.

    Change immigration policy as well as dysgenic welfare policy to stop increasing (and work on decreasing) the supply of people destined never to earn a decent living in the marketplace;

    give people a sense of fair play, a sense that they are cared for and respected, and take away their constant fear (and sometimes physical suffering) by providing a basic income, basic medical care, and bare-bones housing, so long as they act in civilized fashion and do what work they can to pitch in (even “make-work” projects);

    strongly encourage belief in a just, loving God and the dignity of every person and soul, and work against (and deplatform) forces denigrating such belief;

    strongly encourage and subsidize every sane, non-retarded person in conceiving and raising one or two of his own children, so he has a sense of purpose, can love and be loved, and can support and then be materially supported by his child or children — and remove anti-family, anti-natalist, anti-healthy-sexuality influences from government, media, and especially schools.

    All of this will tend to lessen despair and prevent more people from feeling the need to invite debilitating drugs to fill the spiritual void. Prohibition hasn’t done this and cannot do this. But neither can popular “culture” that glorifies drug use or downplays the devastation often wrought by many drugs beyond alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, and caffeine (and sometimes by alcohol too).

    • Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read
  159. anon[117] • Disclaimer says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Alcohol is worse.

    How do you know this to be true?

  160. @Jake

    I was an active evangelizing Libertarian and I was unrealistic and partly wrong.

  161. @Kyle

    There’s some truth to your observations, for sure, especially the increased stigma against smokers.

    But middle-income to somewhat upper-income people, including college-“educated” and college-bound people, seem to be vaping a hell of a lot these days, both tobacco and marijuana. We have observed this all over the US in our recent travels, not just in Los Angeles where we live. Not sure that there is the same degree of stigma against vaping as has been cultivated among the non-underclass against smoking. Perhaps this is partly because vaping doesn’t intrude on non-vapers as much as nearby smoking intrudes on non-smokers, and because vapers don’t reek like smokers in the workplace and other public spaces.

  162. anon[551] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franz

    So why, if it was a success, was the Volstead Act not simply reinstated?

    Successful or not, the Volstead Act required a Constitutional amendment (18th) to enact and another Constitutional amendment (21st) to repeal. It was not just an act of Congress, like the Pure Food and Drug Act. This is common knowledge.

    • Replies: @Franz
  163. @RadicalCenter

    Ending mass immigration, and thereby ending the unsustainable increase in our population, would be an important factor in making people’s lives here less miserable.

    President-Elect Harris disagrees.

  164. @Muggles

    Pot wasn’t legal in merely a handful of cities during 2020. About ninety million people in California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Michigan, Illinois, and Massachusetts were able to buy non-medical marijuana in licensed, regulated, and taxed stores, and they did so in large numbers.

    Otherwise agree with your comment.

  165. Steve, this is without doubt the dumbest thing you have ever said. I am actually dumbfounded that you could write this.

    The man who prides himself on being good with data and statistics, the same man who has spent the last few years talking about how defunding the police and inflaming BLM has led to huge crime increases, now wants to ignore the bulk of his discussion topics over the last few years and look at nothing but drug “semi-decriminalization”? Did you leave your brain in your other pants today?

  166. Franz says:
    @anon

    Successful or not, the Volstead Act required a Constitutional amendment (18th) to enact and another Constitutional amendment (21st) to repeal. It was not just an act of Congress, like the Pure Food and Drug Act. This is common knowledge.

    The question was rhetorical: If it worked and they only found out how well afterward, pass another amendment and this time include even more substances to ban.

    They did not and will not for the reasons I stated: Any sort of Prohibition might as well be called a Mob Enrichment Bill because if there’s a demand for something illegal, criminals will get rich supplying that demand. This is primer economics; try explaining it to the DEA.

    • Replies: @anon
  167. anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franz

    Any sort of Prohibition might as well be called a Mob Enrichment Bill because if there’s a demand for something illegal, criminals will get rich supplying that demand.

    “There is a demand in the world for murder-for-hire. If we ban murder-for-hire, then all we will do is enrich criminals who are willing to act as paid murderers. Therefore we should make murder-for-hire fully legal.”

    This is your position. Discuss if you wish.

    • Replies: @Franz
  168. @RadicalCenter

    Sailer, where are these libertarians who predicted that “semi-legalization” would reduce murders?

    They make that argument with every drug. The theory is that legalizing a drug eliminates covert wars over black market territory.

    The chief problem is that the vast majority of Black shootings are not over territory or gang control. Black criminals shoot each other for stupid reasons. Anyone that has studied crime in these areas is aware of this. Libertarians only pretend to study crime.

    But if you want I can dig up Cato articles on how ghetto shootings are the result of US drug policy. They have backed every drug legalization effort with that argument.

    Both liberals and libertarians provide intellectually dishonest explanations for Black shootings.

    Libertarians blame drugs and liberals blame racism/poverty/White people. Neither explains the daily shootings in places like Chicago.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  169. @Jake

    Libertarians are almost as unlikely as Marxists and Race-Obsessed Liberals to admit they were wrong.

    All three groups just need to spend time in a peace corp equivalent in a Black area.

    98% of White men will drop any modern race denial based “ism” after seeing reality first hand instead of evangelizing from the burbs.

    The remaining 2% already know their “ism” has serious problems but don’t care.

  170. Franz says:
    @anon

    “There is a demand in the world for murder-for-hire. If we ban murder-for-hire, then all we will do is enrich criminals who are willing to act as paid murderers. Therefore we should make murder-for-hire fully legal.”

    This is your position. Discuss if you wish.

    I know of no case where murder is considered a commodity, which is what this subject is about.

    But murder, for hire or among amateurs, though illegal, has no shortage of practitioners.

    As a former libertarian, I can tell you nobody I knew when I was in was in favor of “legalizing” most crimes. But there is a point which the US reached long ago that the number of laws has outstripped the ability of the average citizen to decipher. The Rutherford Institute has some great stuff on this.

    Most of what the FDA abolishes and the DEA prohibits is considered insane by historical standards. Under current law, doctors have gone to jail for prescribing painkillers innocently to veterans with long-term pain issues. And we’re also had suicides by veterans who were taken off their medication for pain and couldn’t go on with their lives.

    If that is your position, don’t bother arguing it. Responsible citizens who are suffering from chronic pain should need no Big Brother telling them yah or nay. That’s my position and it is inflexible.

    • Replies: @anon
  171. @John Johnson

    It’s possible that the professional need for a drug dealer to have access to a gun means it’s easier for them to murder when somebody disses them at a block party.

    Giuliani and Bloomberg did a lot to change the culture of New York City so that criminals didn’t carry guns, which led to a huge decline (until the Racial Reckoning) in knuckleheads shooting each other over knucklehead reasons.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  172. anon[576] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franz

    I know of no case where murder is considered a commodity, which is what this subject is about.

    Well, you don’t know much about history or even parts of the modern world.

    But murder, for hire or among amateurs, though illegal, has no shortage of practitioners.

    So? Here is what you wrote, that I replied to:

    Any sort of Prohibition might as well be called a Mob Enrichment Bill because if there’s a demand for something illegal, criminals will get rich supplying that demand.

    Rather a sweeping statement, isn’t it?

    As a former libertarian, I can tell you nobody I knew when I was in was in favor of “legalizing” most crimes. But there is a point which the US reached long ago that the number of laws has outstripped the ability of the average citizen to decipher. The Rutherford Institute has some great stuff on this.

    The book “10 Felonies A Day” is more relevant. But so what?

    Most of what the FDA abolishes and the DEA prohibits is considered insane

    So? Scroll back up to the top, where iSteve asked the question:

    Libertarians: Did Semi-Decriminalizing Drugs in 2020 Reduce Murders Like You Theorized?

    The issue of pain management is orthogonal to the actual topic of iSteve’s essay.

    If that is your position, don’t bother arguing it. Responsible citizens who are suffering from chronic pain should need no Big Brother telling them yah or nay. That’s my position and it is inflexible.

    Ok. But you still haven’t gotten around the actual question. This is typical among blank-slate liberteenies, who don’t really understand a lot of the world.

    tl;dr
    You didn’t answer iSteve’s question, perhaps because you cannot understand it. Or perhaps because you won’t understand it.

    • Replies: @Franz
  173. @Steve Sailer

    Could be a factor in some cases but this type of thinking runs into the same problem faced by gun control advocates. We are now trying to control the means in an effort to limit the damage instead of solving the core problem.

    Are we going to legalize drugs to try and restrict Black violence to beatings and stabbings? Keep in mind that a single beating that leads to a hospital visit costs the government thousands of dollars. A stabbing can easily cost 30k.

    Legalizing crack and meth could easily increase violence as “disrespect” type attacks then become fueled by drugs. It’s not disputed that drugs like meth reduce self-control and increase aggression.

    Libertarian and liberal approaches all seem like one giant distraction from facing the reality of race.

    The truly disturbing part is that Libertarians would legalize drugs everywhere all in the name of reducing Black violence. So communities that don’t want legal heroin would get it anyways and Libertarians would call this progress.

    But the real problem in all this is that Black violence was much lower before the civil rights movement and integration. So it’s intellectually dishonest to blame it on US drug policy when penalties were stricter when Black violence was lower. The same is true for gun violence in Black areas. It was lower before the gun control movement existed. So none of this really adds up.

  174. Franz says:
    @anon

    You didn’t answer iSteve’s question

    Did so. You missed it.

    From my earliest post on this thread:

    Making these things illegal is a power grab whether y0u are libertarian or not. One year’s statistics against thousands of years of human experience is not going to change that.

    To draw a picture:

    For thousands of years substances were unregulated EXCEPT alcohol, and usually on religious grounds.

    No regulation meant no “drug crimes” were possible. Making up stories about “drug fiends” were used to help the Harrison Act (1914) and the later criminalization of cannabis (1930s). They had to make shit up because there were no serious problems.

    So Steve’s question really only applies to the US from Nixon’s establishment of the Drug Enforcement Agency in the early 70s till the present.

    This sliver of time compared to all the centuries of medicinal use of narcotics and other substances simply don’t work. Previous empires punished people for crimes against persons and property. If the criminal was drunk/high while doing it, it didn’t matter.

    The DEA is turning 50 shortly. Comparing 50 years of complex and contradictory regulation to five thousand years of none just don’t tell us very much. How many previous empires imported poor people while the economy sank? How many previous empires were diverse? There’s too many differences between us/now and most of history.

    Steve’s question was okay. But the question is in the context of us/now — which is a very short and unusual period of time.

    • Replies: @anon
  175. Cato says:

    Did Semi-Decriminalizing Drugs in 2020 Reduce Murder?

    So many confounding factors in 2020 — especially the Defund-the-Police mania. Control for some of that shit, and one might find a positive effect.

    But, as Ron Paul always points out, to get crime out of the business of getting people high, all drugs must be made legal. Half-hearted measures are never likely to show much of an effect.

    • Agree: Franz
  176. Ian Smith says:
    @Anonymous

    That’s a good point. But a lot of libertarians like that wound up becoming alt-right. Libertarianism used to have an edge to it (Rothbard was red pilled on race and IQ). Now it really is just sheltered nerds who sperg out on Austrian economics and Ayn Rand.

  177. Gamecock says:

    Agree, Cato. But again, decriminalizing drugs has no duty to reduce crime.

    “We tried freedom, but it didn’t work. People died from overdoses of drugs.”

    • Replies: @Franz
  178. anon[390] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franz

    Making these things illegal is a power grab whether y0u are libertarian or not. One year’s statistics against thousands of years of human experience is not going to change that.

    For thousands of years substances were unregulated EXCEPT alcohol, and usually on religious grounds.

    The typical Libertarian assumption of a blank slate and a uniform humanity. I suggest you read about the Opium Wars between Britain and China to learn a bit more.

    No regulation meant no “drug crimes” were possible. Making up stories about “drug fiends” were used to help the Harrison Act (1914) and the later criminalization of cannabis (1930s). They had to make shit up because there were no serious problems.

    That’s a long argument in and of itself. You might note that the quantities of substances available to humans in the last 200 years or so just dwarfs anything from early history. One really cannot leap from prehistoric mushroom eaters in a ceremony to college dropouts binging on them every weekend, not credibly.

    But that’s all an aside. The question is, do drug bans cause murder? Libertarians insist this is so. It appears the reality is different.

    So Steve’s question really only applies to the US from Nixon’s establishment of the Drug Enforcement Agency in the early 70s till the present.

    His question pertains to the 1-dimensional analysis typical of Liberteenies, that some how murder is caused by making things such as drugs illegal; that malum prohibitum laws somehow jack up the incidence of malum in se, and if we just made drugs legal the murder rate in the US would drop.

    It is very similar to Art Kellerman’s infamous “study” that compared murder rates in Seattle, WA. vs Vancouver, BC – he concluded that the difference was all about Canadian gun laws vs. US gun laws. Unfortunately his own data refuted him: the Chinese minority in Vancouver was much less prone to murder vs. the black American minority in Seattle. Backing the minority murders out of both data sets showed that white Americans and white Canadians had essentially the same murder rate, regardless of gun laws.

    In both cases, the libtards and the libertarians blame bad human behavior on something other than the humans who behave badly. Libtards regard guns as powerful shamanic totems, liberteenies insist on their Homo Economicus blank-slate model.

    Libtards insist: If we just took all the scary gun-totems away murder would end! Liberteenies insist: If we just got the economic incentives right, mean psychotics would become models of humanity! Both are demonstrably wrong; each theory fails to predict real-world events.

    tl;dr
    Low IQ individuals with high T, a short time horizon and poor impulse control cannot function very well, if at all, in Libertopia. This was demonstrated in 2020 in some very painful ways.

  179. Franz says:
    @Gamecock

    This is true.

    Overcrowding cities with low IQ people as opportunities for their services fall is giving us a cumbustible situation.

    While factories ran hot and sharecropping brought in enough to live on, we had much more peace.

    The current obsession for things like AI and self-driving cars might be short sighted.

    Re-building much of our blighted nation will solve a lot more problems than a thousand new apps.

    • Replies: @anon
  180. anon[140] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franz

    Overcrowding cities with low IQ people as opportunities for their services fall is giving us a cumbustible situation.

    But all we gotta do is legalize all the drugs and everything will be OK! Amirite?

  181. AceDeuce says:
    @anon

    Don’t leave us hanging–What’s the name of the place in Philly? I hardly ever get there anymore, but I know my way around. Thanks in advance.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?