Guns, Drugs And Alcohol
By Dr. Michael S. Brown - Posted: 12.07.00

What do guns, drugs, and alcohol have in common? They are all highly
portable, highly prized by many people, and can be abused. Each has
been the object of societal sanctions.

A grand, but foolish experiment with alcohol prohibition was tried from
1920 to 1933. The dreadful results are well documented. Drug prohibition
has lasted much longer and provides an excellent example of how a
prohibition program works in modern times.

In the name of protecting the public, the war on drugs has led to
greater government power in many areas. The once unbreakable line
between the police and military has crumbled. Our prisons overflow with
people convicted of drug related crimes, but drugs are more available
than ever. New terms like "body cavity search", "no-knock entry", "racial
profiling", and "stop and frisk" have entered our vocabulary.

SWAT teams that were originally formed to rescue hostages now
execute deadly nocturnal raids on houses designated by informants of
doubtful reliability or on houses of people who annoy local authorities.
Guilty and innocent alike are being killed in increasing numbers. Laws
allowing enforcement agencies to keep confiscated drug wealth often
determine the targets of anti-drug raids. Police corruption is a constant
problem.

Criminal gangs have flourished under drug prohibition, much as they did
in the 1920's. Smugglers and gangsters literally owe their livelihood to
the war on drugs.

It is becoming painfully obvious that the cure is worse than the disease.
Yet some people appear to have learned nothing from alcohol prohibition
or drug prohibition and insist that we experience the joys of gun
prohibition. There are indications that the same counterproductive
tactics will be used. Some of the worst abuses of government force in
recent years were precipitated by technical and victimless gun law
violations.

The media has played an important role by dramatizing the ill effects of
drug abuse, while completely ignoring the way that crime and violence
are worsened by drug prohibition. Perhaps some strange taboo prevents
an honest look at the big picture.

Media treatment of the gun issue is very much the same. Stories
involving inappropriate use of firearms are front page news, but there is
a virtual blackout on positive stories about armed self defense or the
way that stricter gun laws lead to higher levels of crime and violence.

Opponents of both the war on drugs and the war on guns have adopted
the same term --unintended consequences-- to describe the way in
which stronger laws paradoxically cause more crime and violence. Their
web sites are almost mirror images of each other, except that they
complain about the corruption, lack of accountability and violent
depredations of different government agencies. These groups are
isolated at either end of the political spectrum, but their common
interest is obvious.

Those who oppose the disastrous war on drugs and those who oppose
the growing war on guns are starting to reach out to each other. They
are setting aside ideological differences and exploring their common
interest. If these two groups can show the way, there are other groups
who might join a crusade for fewer laws and less government
interference in our daily lives.

Perhaps some enterprising politician will sense this natural alliance and
use it to further his or her career. Republican politicians have paid lip
service to the concept of a smaller, less intrusive government, but are
unwilling to make the ideological shift necessary to exploit it.

There is no way to predict how much success this potential political
alliance could have, since it will be opposed by many politicians who
jealously protect government power. Even so it has the potential to
redraw the political map for decades to come.

--Dr. Michael S. Brown is a member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws; on
the web at: www.keepandbeararms.com/dsgl

He may be reached at: mb@e-z.net