May 03, 2025
Volstead on Steroids
Timothy Birdnow
I heartily concur.
‘A Supply Problem, Not A Demand Problem’: Tucker Carlson Reveals What Changed His Mind About US Drug Policy
I always thought the American policy of going after users was stupid. It's like playing whack-a-mole, only you aren't even hitting the actual mole, but the guy who is standing next to the machine.
The whole point of narcotics laws is to HELP people, to avoid addiction and the criminality and health problems that come with it. It's become a kind of kill-joy approach. America has always been prone to moralizing and attempting to criminalize what someone thinks is a bad idea. Take Prohibition as one example.
That is not to say I favor legalization of narcotics; I don't. I've seen the destruction caused by them (even pot). But in my view the efforts should be made on the supply side, not the demand side. The customers are the ones we are trying to protect.
Of course the suppliers have the money and can corrupt the system, which is why we go after the customers.
FTA:
Take Rush Limbaugh. Rush had back pain - and anyone who has had REAL back pain knows it ruins your life. So he was proscribed Oxycodone. He became addicted, and no doubt did doctor shop. So he was charged with a crime and had a hard time getting out of trouble. HE did nothing really wrong, just violated a law that was designed to help HIM in the first place but which sat in moral judgement of El Rushbo. Rush was not the porblem and resources should never have been wasted on him. He HAD a problem, but shouldn't have been treated like a criminal.
Who cares if someone uses drugs, even strong narcotics, provided they don't hurt anyone? Of course drug addicts DO tend to hurt people, and often turn to crime to get their fixes, so it's society's problem and not just their own. But the point is the addict is as much a victim as anyone. The pushers and importers are the real villains.
Laws should punish those who hurt others, not meddle in the lives of people who aren't doing anything injurious to others.
And we've had the "war on drugs" since the nineties with little in the way of results. Why? Because we're waging war on the wrong people. This is like going into land contested by your enemy in a war and killing the villagers there on the theory that they might join the enemy. Anyone remember My Lai in Vietnam? It was pretty much understood that massacring the people we came to protect was a bad idea.
Carlson continues:
That is correct. In economic terms we on the Right all advocate supply side economics; the idea that clearing the way for those who supply goods and services benefits the economy while imposing blocks, like taxes or regulations, strangled the economy. This is at odds with the Keynsians, who are demand-side conomists, believing it's all about demand from the market. Which works? Supply side has worked every time it'sbeen tried. Keynsiansim eventually strangles the market because the demand simply pushes up prices or leads to shortages if prices are artificially stifled. So if you translate that to the drug market you have the same result; demand side enforcement only leads to more of the drugs coming, making them more easily obtainable. Harassing the users does little to stop the trade because it's lucrative and people are going to use it. But if you dry up the supply you drive up the price and you make it hard to find. People will just pop a beer or maybe smoke some home-grown marijuana which isn't laced with anything and is weaker than what they would get from the cartels.
How did China deal with the opium epidemic they suffered in the 19th century? They burned all the poppy crops, went after dealers and producers, and took steps to find alternatives to sitting around in opium dens. The addicted generation died out and there is now no opium problem in China. (Lots of other problems, granted.) The point is they didn't try to go after every addicted Chinament to dry up demand; they went after supply.
And who is aiding and abetting that? Mexico, for one. China. Probably Russia as well. We let them aid and abet the importation of drugs because these countries pay our political leaders and enforcement officers. If you want to end the problem you would start arresting people who take such bribes. You would also go after the Cartels and squeeze the ports of entry. That's why Trump is putting the military on the border, and why he's squeezing them with tariffs now. Everyone wondered why we are going after Canada; they've been a port of entry for drugs for years. They haven't cared to fight it because it's screwing us, not them. If they fight it they have to deal with the drug lords and others; easier to just make it the problem of the U.S.
You don't destroy a country to save it and you don't destroy people to save them.
I heartily concur.
‘A Supply Problem, Not A Demand Problem’: Tucker Carlson Reveals What Changed His Mind About US Drug Policy
I always thought the American policy of going after users was stupid. It's like playing whack-a-mole, only you aren't even hitting the actual mole, but the guy who is standing next to the machine.
The whole point of narcotics laws is to HELP people, to avoid addiction and the criminality and health problems that come with it. It's become a kind of kill-joy approach. America has always been prone to moralizing and attempting to criminalize what someone thinks is a bad idea. Take Prohibition as one example.
That is not to say I favor legalization of narcotics; I don't. I've seen the destruction caused by them (even pot). But in my view the efforts should be made on the supply side, not the demand side. The customers are the ones we are trying to protect.
Of course the suppliers have the money and can corrupt the system, which is why we go after the customers.
FTA:
I was an unpaid fellow at a libertarian think tank in D.C. I thought I was a libertarian — sort of am libertarian in a lot of ways still. I really don’t want to bother other people,” Carlson said. "But I left after a drug policy conference that I went to that really kind of changed my thinking on the world.”
"At it, they explained the libertarian position on drug policy, which is kind of America’s position on drug policy, which is ‘It’s the drug addict’s fault. Like people get addicted to drugs. That’s their problem. That’s their fault.’ And it’s kind of the demand explanation for the drug epidemic. It’s like we have a lot of drugs because people want a lot of drugs in this country,” Carlson added. "It’s not Mexico’s or China’s fault or the drug dealer’s fault.”
In March, Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn and Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz urged the Department of Justice to restart drug interdiction efforts at U.S. airports and transportation facilities. In a letter to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the two lawmakers called for the reinstatement of Drug Enforcement Administration searches, which were removed in 2024 under the Biden-Harris administration.
"Yeah, no, the desire for it,” Cella responded. "That’s what Mexico says. It’s like if you people didn’t want it so badly.”
"Exactly. I thought, you know, that makes sense. I mean, it’s kind of like one of those lines you hear. They’re like, yeah, that sounds right. Then you think of your own life and then you think of the people you know who got tragically fucked up or killed by drugs. Of course, I know a lot of them,” Carlson said. "You think, ‘No, actually,’ like some of them are — like your mom — a super-healthy person, obviously a distance runner, the healthiest person in America — distance runners. She has an injury, and some doctor gives her a drug and she becomes an addict.
"At it, they explained the libertarian position on drug policy, which is kind of America’s position on drug policy, which is ‘It’s the drug addict’s fault. Like people get addicted to drugs. That’s their problem. That’s their fault.’ And it’s kind of the demand explanation for the drug epidemic. It’s like we have a lot of drugs because people want a lot of drugs in this country,” Carlson added. "It’s not Mexico’s or China’s fault or the drug dealer’s fault.”
In March, Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn and Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz urged the Department of Justice to restart drug interdiction efforts at U.S. airports and transportation facilities. In a letter to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the two lawmakers called for the reinstatement of Drug Enforcement Administration searches, which were removed in 2024 under the Biden-Harris administration.
"Yeah, no, the desire for it,” Cella responded. "That’s what Mexico says. It’s like if you people didn’t want it so badly.”
"Exactly. I thought, you know, that makes sense. I mean, it’s kind of like one of those lines you hear. They’re like, yeah, that sounds right. Then you think of your own life and then you think of the people you know who got tragically fucked up or killed by drugs. Of course, I know a lot of them,” Carlson said. "You think, ‘No, actually,’ like some of them are — like your mom — a super-healthy person, obviously a distance runner, the healthiest person in America — distance runners. She has an injury, and some doctor gives her a drug and she becomes an addict.
Take Rush Limbaugh. Rush had back pain - and anyone who has had REAL back pain knows it ruins your life. So he was proscribed Oxycodone. He became addicted, and no doubt did doctor shop. So he was charged with a crime and had a hard time getting out of trouble. HE did nothing really wrong, just violated a law that was designed to help HIM in the first place but which sat in moral judgement of El Rushbo. Rush was not the porblem and resources should never have been wasted on him. He HAD a problem, but shouldn't have been treated like a criminal.
Who cares if someone uses drugs, even strong narcotics, provided they don't hurt anyone? Of course drug addicts DO tend to hurt people, and often turn to crime to get their fixes, so it's society's problem and not just their own. But the point is the addict is as much a victim as anyone. The pushers and importers are the real villains.
Laws should punish those who hurt others, not meddle in the lives of people who aren't doing anything injurious to others.
And we've had the "war on drugs" since the nineties with little in the way of results. Why? Because we're waging war on the wrong people. This is like going into land contested by your enemy in a war and killing the villagers there on the theory that they might join the enemy. Anyone remember My Lai in Vietnam? It was pretty much understood that massacring the people we came to protect was a bad idea.
Carlson continues:
"Carlson then shared Cella’s story, explaining how, as an insecure high school student, he tried drugs, which led him to become a needle-dependent heroin addict. Carlson described how Cella eventually attacked members of the Mexican Mafia with pepper spray, narrowly escaping death.
"That suggests to me that what we have is a supply problem, not a demand problem, like you’re in. You probably would have been happy with Bud Light or Coors Light or whatever,” Carlson said.
"Instead you wind up on heroin because you had access to this drug. So if you take 100 people and give them heroin every day for a month, like what percentage become junkies? All of them?” Carlson asked. "I was just thinking this at this drug policy conference, and I was like, ‘Actually, you’re all liars, probably getting paid by Purdue Pharma to lie.’ And it’s the Cato Institute. They’re definitely liars. I can say that now. But I didn’t understand it because this is the one topic I knew something about, having lived it."
"That suggests to me that what we have is a supply problem, not a demand problem, like you’re in. You probably would have been happy with Bud Light or Coors Light or whatever,” Carlson said.
"Instead you wind up on heroin because you had access to this drug. So if you take 100 people and give them heroin every day for a month, like what percentage become junkies? All of them?” Carlson asked. "I was just thinking this at this drug policy conference, and I was like, ‘Actually, you’re all liars, probably getting paid by Purdue Pharma to lie.’ And it’s the Cato Institute. They’re definitely liars. I can say that now. But I didn’t understand it because this is the one topic I knew something about, having lived it."
That is correct. In economic terms we on the Right all advocate supply side economics; the idea that clearing the way for those who supply goods and services benefits the economy while imposing blocks, like taxes or regulations, strangled the economy. This is at odds with the Keynsians, who are demand-side conomists, believing it's all about demand from the market. Which works? Supply side has worked every time it'sbeen tried. Keynsiansim eventually strangles the market because the demand simply pushes up prices or leads to shortages if prices are artificially stifled. So if you translate that to the drug market you have the same result; demand side enforcement only leads to more of the drugs coming, making them more easily obtainable. Harassing the users does little to stop the trade because it's lucrative and people are going to use it. But if you dry up the supply you drive up the price and you make it hard to find. People will just pop a beer or maybe smoke some home-grown marijuana which isn't laced with anything and is weaker than what they would get from the cartels.
How did China deal with the opium epidemic they suffered in the 19th century? They burned all the poppy crops, went after dealers and producers, and took steps to find alternatives to sitting around in opium dens. The addicted generation died out and there is now no opium problem in China. (Lots of other problems, granted.) The point is they didn't try to go after every addicted Chinament to dry up demand; they went after supply.
And who is aiding and abetting that? Mexico, for one. China. Probably Russia as well. We let them aid and abet the importation of drugs because these countries pay our political leaders and enforcement officers. If you want to end the problem you would start arresting people who take such bribes. You would also go after the Cartels and squeeze the ports of entry. That's why Trump is putting the military on the border, and why he's squeezing them with tariffs now. Everyone wondered why we are going after Canada; they've been a port of entry for drugs for years. They haven't cared to fight it because it's screwing us, not them. If they fight it they have to deal with the drug lords and others; easier to just make it the problem of the U.S.
You don't destroy a country to save it and you don't destroy people to save them.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:44 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1363 words, total size 8 kb.
28kb generated in CPU 0.0176, elapsed 0.2179 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.2122 seconds, 170 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.2122 seconds, 170 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
