There's a popular conceit that laws restricting gun ownership, drug use, and gay marriage are all similar intrusions on personal liberty. It's a popular conceit, and the idea seems attractive. It also has the beauty of combining the interests of people from both ends of the political spectrum. On the other hand, there's a fundamental problem with the conceit: The reasons to restrict gun ownership, drug use, and gay marriage aren't the same.
Gay Marriage is the ultimate personal issue, two people decide they want to get married, and society may object. Objections are based on antiquated ideas of religion, cultural normalcy, or personal morality. Previously, there have been laws prohibiting interracial marriage (to prevent "mongrelization of the white race"). Certain cultures don't permit interreligious marriage (to prevent the children from being raised [INSERT OTHER RELIGION HERE]). But, the reality is that all of these are about imposing society's judgment on what is fundamentally a personal decision.
There are two justifications for criminalizing drug use: the harms to the user, and the collateral harms of others caused by users. I'm not convinced that the harms inflicted on users of drugs is a valid basis for a law. If adulthood doesn't mean the right to make bad decisions, then we're a nation of children. The reality is that a person can suffer permanent injury boxing, doing gymnastics, skydiving, or skiing, but none of those are illegal. I realize that drugs are immediately harmful, but so are cigarettes, alcohol, and fatty foods, but there is no law prohibiting or restricting the right to smoke cigarettes, drink whiskey, or grab a double double with animal fries.
The more compelling justification for criminalizing drug use is the collateral harms. Junkies can neglect children due to drug use. The secondary criminal impacts of drugs are about the violence related to the illegal drug trade, crimes committed by junkies to pay for drugs, or other such issues. The problem with the collateral issues theory, is that all of those behaviors we don't like are already illegal. Further, many of these issues are actually amplified by the criminalization of drugs. The most obvious example is violence.
There's an interesting thing about illegalizing a consumer good. Consumer good prices are set by intersections of supply and demand. Criminalization does nothing to affect demand, but artificially sets supply at zero. When supply is insufficient to fill demand, there is either a shortage (which increases price), people find substitute products (unless it is an inelastic market), or a black market fills the gap. The nature of addiction reduces the availability of meaningful substitutions. This keeps prices artificially high, and means that a black market will supply the demand.
The drug trade isn't violent by nature. It's violent because people will use violence to protect money and power. Further, the criminalization of drugs makes it more difficult for junkies to get treatment. The criminalization of behavior creates a cultural taboo around that behavior. It makes people less likely to have discussions with their kids. It makes people less likely to admit to their problems. It makes kids less likely to get help when a friend is having an overdose. It means that people who have substance abuse problems can end up being criminally prosecuted for their medical problem. So I'm not a big fan of the collateral damage justification for the criminalization of drug use. Mostly, because the harms of criminalization seem as bad or worse than harms of drug use.
Laws regulating, restricting, an otherwise addressing firearms, be they by requiring registration, criminalizing ownership or sale of certain firearms, or requiring background checks by purchasers of firearms are about the collateral consequences of firearms. Advocates for gun rights argue that the collateral issues of guns and drugs are the same. I think there's a difference, however, and here's why: The very intended purpose of a firearm is to kill. The use of a firearm for its intended purpose will be fatal to something. Further, fully legal ownership of a firearm can hurt or kill someone without the owner having committed any separately criminal act.
Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. But you have every right to punch yourself if you want to.
There are other issues with gun control, questions regarding what laws there should be, what the goals should be of such laws, and what laws are most effective at containing the dangers of firearms from hurting innocents. But, when you're simply discussing the underlying reasons: Gun ownership is very different from other personal liberties.
No comments:
Post a Comment