Will America Become Detroit, Part 4: The End of the Victimless Crime Spree

"Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could."
- William F. Buckley, Jr.

"Oh what a delight to
Be given the right to
Be care free and gay once again"
- From "Cocktails for Two" by by Arthur Johnston and Sam Coslow

Some of humanity's greatest advances emerged from severe crises. As bad as the looming U.S. debt crisis is, it will force badly needed reforms in our criminal code. This nation devotes and a tremendous amount of resources prosecuting victimless crimes, especially the war on drugs. This relentless pursuit of adults engaging in consensual behavior is wasteful, ineffective, and frequently violates our civil liberties. But this particular form of government overreach will almost certainly end, and it will do for a rather mundane reason: the state simply won't have the funds to continue.

Prohibition Repeal as the Ultimate Rent Party

There is a historical precedent for the immanent demise of most victimless crimes. Consider the Volstead act, commonly known as prohibition. This forerunner of the war on drugs banned intoxicating alcoholic beverages. Even though the failures of this act became apparent soon after the act's passage in 1919, it was not repealed until 1933. What happened in 1933 that finally did in the Volstead act?

In part, prohibition was ended by the great depression. At a time when the economic downturn was drying up tax revenue, governments were saddled with the substantial costs of enforcing prohibition. Moreover, keeping bars and liquor closed also closed off a badly needed source of tax revenue. When it became clear that prohibition could only be continued by asking an impoverished public to tighten their belts still further, the prohibition repeal effort passed overwhelmingly.

The Volstead Act on Crack

If 1930's depression era America found prohibition too dear a luxury, then twenty-first century debt crisis America will almost certainly reject its even more expensive offshoot, the war on drugs. Essentially, the war on drugs is the Volstead Act on Crack. Consider these expenses:

Jail House Rock

Key element of the war on drugs is harsh minimum sentences for drug offenses and extremely aggressive enforcement. Since President Nixon kicked off the war on drugs in 1971, American incarceration rates have more than quadrupled. We now hold the dubious distinction of having the highest incarceration rate in the world. We have more prisoners than all of China, which has four times our general population. We jail a larger portion of our black population than did Apartheid era South Africa.

The costs of all these prisoners is straining state budgets.
California pays $45,563 a year to keep a man in prison, so now the Golden state spends more on jails than it does on universities. And that does not even could the loss of tax revenue from taking these prisoners out of the economy. Longitudinal studies show an even greater expense: those serving lengthy drug sentences are less likely to ever become a productive member of society.

In the past, the mantra of the drug warrior has been that it is important to "send a message" to users of illicit drugs. But as states such as California and Michigan face the threat of default, they are bound to ask if we could please send this message via Western Union.

Putting the War into "The War on Drugs"

The war on drugs quickly took up a large portion of law enforcement efforts at all levels. It even has its own enforcement agency, the DEA, which has spend $536 billion on drug enforcement since its inception in 1973. (See the suitable tacky DEA museum gift shop). But victimless crimes are notoriously hard to enforce. When this effort fell short, harsher tactics such as SWAT teams and no-knock raids were tried. Some police departments have even acquired military equipment from the DOD. When they called it the "War on Drugs", they were not kidding!

Like most wars, this one has had plenty of collateral damage. There have been raids on the wrong house that have resulted in innocent people or even pets getting shot. To be fair, raids on real drug dealers are highly dangerous operations, so police are bound to make mistakes in these high stress situations. But this is a danger of our own making. The day prohibition was repealed, the bootlegger gangs went out of business, and with their demise, there was a marked decrease in gang violence. Drug decriminalization would likely have the same effect, saving us both money and lives.

Too Poor to Keep Screwing Up

Due to budget constraints, Detroit has had to make cuts in its police force. In order to protect themselves, some of this city's citizens have formed a citizen's group called Detroit 300 that patrols the streets that Detroit's finest used to patrol. Not surprisingly, all the crimes that Detroit 300 deal with are crimes with victims: rape, robbery, assult, murder, etc. They are not chasing down dope smokers. When hard choices have to be made, enforcing victimless crimes is the first thing to go.

As the nation's debt crisis comes to a head, we will forced to take the same approach as Detroit 300. There are many better reasons to end the war on drugs, but it will definitely end for one reason: we cannot afford it. Lack of funds will force our government to do the right thing.

Speaking of victimless crimes, check out the documentary Derrick J's Victimless Crime Spree, where one activist gets into an amazing amount of legal trouble for peaceably protesting his local public officials.

Occupy Boston Versus What Occupies Mayor Menino's Soul

"Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
- From "The Life and Death of Julies Caesar", Act I Scene II

"Take a step outside yourself
Then you turn around
Take a look at who you are
It's pretty scary"
- From "Turn Around" (1980) lyrics by Mark Mothersbaugh and Gerald Casale

The "Occupy Wall Street" movement has spread to many big cities, including Boston. Recently Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has ordered the arrests of "Occupy Boston" protesters. On the surface, the Mayor has some valid charges: the protest was spilling over onto the Rose Kennedy Greenway, in violation of zoning rules. The protests have disrupted commercial activity. In particular, a lucrative food festival was cancelled because the protesters had taken over the space where the event would have taken place. Yes, we have the irony that an event that would have provided a lot of temp jobs was cancelled so that people could protest unemployment.

But cry no tears for the his honor the Mayor. The blame for the current lawlessness goes beyond the young people he is arresting. The true cause of the "Occupy Boston" controversy can best be explained by the following facts about Massachusetts politics:

1. Massachusetts is basically a one-party state, so much so that almost all elections are considered over after the Democratic primary;
2. This lack of any political challenge has created unusually powerful and long tenured public officials; and
3. Perhaps because of facts 1 and 2, the commonwealth of Massachusetts has suffered more than her fair share of government corruption (the last three House Speakers are all convicted felons).

Mayor Menino is the archetypical Massachusetts politician. First elected in 1993, Menino has rarely encountered more than token opposition in subsequent elections. He is popular for taking a no-holds-barred approach to the challenges of the office, often at the expense of our constitutional rights.

In 2005, there was a popular line of tee shirts emblazoned with the words "Stop Snitchen'". Menino condemned these shirts as discouraging cooperation with the police. When some Boston stores wanted to sell these shirts, the Mayor vowed to send officers into the stores to seize the shirts. Menino was advised that such a seizure would raise free speech issues, so he tried another tact. City inspectors discovered (who knew?) that the clothing stores that wanted to carry the shirts (and only those stores) had code violations. And once the orders for "Stop Snitchen'" shirts were cancelled, the inspectors found that these stores were up to code after all! Score 1 for Mayor Menino, 0 for the first amendment.

In January of 2007, the Mayor was rightly concerned that after an AFC playoff game, Patriot fans might engage in violence. The Mayor felt that TV news coverage of sports bars might inflame the fans. Lesser men might have urged TV newscasters to be cautious, but not our Honor the Mayor. With all the boldness of a honey badger, he told the Boston bar and tavern owners, a group that is even more under the city's thumb than clothing stores, to not allow TV crews into their establishments. With the fear of losing their precious liquor licenses, TV journalists were shut out of Boston bars. So much for an independent fourth estate; it's good to be the king.

When the Tea Party demonstration (the recent one, not the 1773 party) took place in Boston, the Mayor insisted that they needed permits and that they need to pay a substantial fee to cover expenses that Boston might incur. The idea that we have to get permits and pay fees in order to exercise our constitutional right to assemble is problematic, but there is an even more disturbing aspect to the Boston protest permit and fees system. Before "Occupy Boston", Mayor Menino enthused over the ideas that the protestors would be advancing. So unlike the Tea Party, no permits or fees were required of the Occupy Boston organizers. Civil rights attorney Harvey Silverglate, founder of the campus free speech organization F.I.R.E., is appalled that these fees and red tape are applied at the whims of the Mayor, even though he sympathizes with "Occupy Boston". This is not about protecting city finances: in police overtime alone, "Occupy Boston" has far exceeded all expenses related to the Tea Party event. This is about directing the city's finances to the political causes that the Mayor favors. These arbitrary fees and permits represent a new low in the abuse of power, even by Bay State standards.

So even after giving the "Occupy Boston" people a pass, his honor the Mayor is miffed that the demonstrators circumvent or ignore the laws that they don't like. Sorry Mayor, you do not have my sympathy. If you want Bostonians to show more respect for the law, you should model that behavior by showing some respect for the most important set of laws for our government officials: the U.S. constitution. The constitution asserts that all of us, as part of our basic nature, have certain inalienable rights, including the right to free speech and to assemble. Mayor Menino, could your persistent violations of the spirit, if not the letter, of the first amendment be viewed by the young men and women protesting that the law is not worth taking seriously? If the Mayor were to ask the arrested protestors where they learned to disrespect the law, they could justifiably respond with the 1980's Ad line, "I learned it from watching you!".

For the lighter side of Thomas Menino, check out the Official Mumbles Menino web site. The mayor speeches are filled with many inadvertent malaprops, spoonerisms, and novel phrasing, so the news commentators that cover them often have to do double duty as cryptographers. It appears that he has as much trouble with his own speech as he has with others. The "Mumbles Menino" site includes the funniest and / or most WTF Menino utterances.

On the heavier side of Tom Menino, in recent years he has suffered from significant weight gain. Imagine an overweight autocratic leader who speaks in a way that many people find hard to understand. That image seems familiar; I think I remember where I've seen it:

When Will We See War Declared the Right Way?

"The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
- Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution

"Then it’s war!
Freedonia’s going to war!
Each native son will grab a gun.
And run away to war!"
- From "The Country's Goin' to War" by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby;

Pundits have criticized the U.S. bombing of Libya for its ill timing, its lack of planning, and for the fuzzy end goals. As serious as these issues are, there is an even bigger problem with this military action: is it constitutional? According to section 8 of the constitution, the power to declare war resides with congress. The decision to set up a no-fly zone was made without a vote in the house or the senate, or even consulting with most Senators and Representatives for that matter.

Does the President have the constitutional power to do this? Voices as disparate as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) agree that this action is clearly a violation of Obama's oath to uphold the constitution. In fact, some feel that this is an impeachable offense. One former Senator and presidential candidate said in 2007, that if then President George Bush unilaterally took military action against Iran, he would move to impeach him. That candidate was Sen. Joe Biden, our current Vice President.

In December 2007, the Boston Globe asked the Presidential candidates

"In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"

Candidate Barack Obama's response started with

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Absolutely correct, candidate Obama! Now can you please impart this constitutional expertise to President Obama?

To be fair, section 8 of the constitution has been ignored for many administrations. The last American war officially declared by congress was before the Korean war! The U.S. has not fought a war as proscribe by the constitution in my lifetime, and I fear that I might not live to see a constitutionally declared war. But previous presidents have at least had some sort of congressional vote to approve wars that did not involve a threat to the nation. Obama has crossed a new threshold with the Libyan no-fly zone.

Instead of waiting for congressional approval, our President acted on the approval of two other bodies: the United Nation and the Arab League. This is troubling for reasons other than the fact that these bodies have zero congressional authority: neither of these bodies are elected by U.S. citizens. War can impact U.S. foreign relations for generations. The cost of American wars is born by U.S. taxpayers. Our wars also kill many of the our best young people. Given the burden on U.S. citizens, shouldn't war decisions be made by a body elected by these citizens?

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being fought, in part, to bring democracy to those countries. But who's fighting to bring democracy to America?

Texas School Children: Flex Your Rights!

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
- Amendment 4 to the U.S. Constitution

"In 1787 I'm told Our founding fathers did agree
To write a list of principles For keepin' people free"
- From "Preamble", written by Lynn Ahrens for "Schoolhouse Rock"

This site's previous post discussed how some Texas school districts are now enforcing discipline using the criminal justice system. As noted in the Texas Appleseed report, this overly severe form of punishment poses a burden on poor families, is unfair to racial minorities, and adds to the already considerable challenges facing handicapped students. Is there any bright side to this criminalization of student behavior?

Yes there is. The ticketing of Texas students gives us an ideal platform to teach our children the importance of the U.S. constitution. Sadly, most adult Americans are quite ignorant of the workings of our democracy, especially our constitution. Civil libertarian Steven Silverman was shocked to discover how often people would unknowingly waive their constitutional rights, so in 2002 he founded the non-profit educational organization Flex Your Rights to educate the public on their constitutional protections. Flex Your Rights produced the video BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters, which I heartily recommend.

Our schools have been doing a poor job of teaching the constitution. I would recommend that we work with the Flex Your Rights folks to develop a course on the constitution for Texas students. If the Texas school systems refuse to teach the constitution, perhaps Texan libertarians could present constitution lessons outside of school system (think of it as a Texan version of Dumbledore's Army). Armed with the Flex Your Rights curriculum, Texan students could both protect themselves from the excesses of the ticketing system and learn a valuable civics lesson in the process.

For example, the Appleseed report tells of a girl who was given a $200 ticket when a school officer searched her purse and found a cigarette butt. Had she known about the fourth amendment, she would have known that the search could almost certainly be prevented if she politely but clearly told the officer "I do not consent to a search of my purse". Unless the officer has a warrant for searching her purse, any search of her purse would be illegal, the cigarette butt could not be admitted as evidence in court, and the school officer could be be held liable for the illegal search.

The most effective learning technique is to learn by doing. Imagine what students would learn about civics by actually applying the Flex Your Rights curriculum for their own protection. This whole affair could have one really positive effect: a generation of Texas students with a full appreciation of our founding documents.