ADDITION BY SUBTRACTION
The basis for laws and regulations is that there must be negative consequences to deter abusive behavior. Sadly, in our society there are consequences – but they seldom apply to abusers. In real life justice is swift, assured and often disproportionately harsh for low income criminals. Conversely justice is ponderous, sporadic and often disproportionately light for those with money and influence. And often laws are either written or selectively enforced to deflect consequences from those who profit from criminal behaviors to those who either commit crimes are are themselves victimized by those who profit. The free market of commerce and information has historically worked against this process but has increasingly become diluted with the concentration of wealth and influence beginning in the 1980s.
When an individual without influence commits a heinous crime that effects another individual justice is swift. When a business owner makes decisions that result in heinous crimes against thousands of consumers, workers, and/or citizen taxpayers justice is virtually nonexistent – especially if the government is dependent on the economic activity generated by that business. Moral suasion can be even more useful than fines or prison time – IF there were no adverse consequences for those who report these crimes or no code of silence among other high level businesses who either engage in similar practices to “stay competitive” or does business with the criminal. When fewer people control greater proportions of our economy this process only accelerates.
Liberals all too often call for regulations that dictate rules of business conduct that may or may not improve the quality of the workplace, product or environmental protection. The cost of these regulations fall on both legitimate and criminal business but – like all laws – punishment falls on those with the least access to justice that only money will buy. Criminals with money always find ways to delay justice until such time as they can deflect blame or bargain with regulators over consequences. Legitimate businesses pay the costs of regulation while the criminals who profit make deals with those in power.
Drug prohibition has always been a response to citizen unrest based on abuse of power by those in power to benefit the investor class. In the mid 19th century, thousands of soldiers fought and died in wars that benefited the interests of the investor class who sold the weapons and reaped the rewards of access to more resources. The working class paid the price in blood and tax money. This is why the Republican anti tax stance resonates with the working class. That’s also why the GOP stance on spending always excludes government spending that either benefits the investor class or abuses the working class disproportionately.
Invariably at the end of any war and the nationalistic fervor has subsided there is considerable unrest among those who paid the costs and received little of the benefit. Often these include soldiers wounded in battle whose care began and ended at the battlefield. Once they were not needed for conquest they become disposable and useful only as symbols of national pride to rally support for current government policy. Many of these soldiers self medicate and it is easy for those in power to deflect discussion of the real problems that involve the blatant disconnect between those who pay the price of war and those who benefit to the drugs used by some protesters. It doesn’t take a genius to see the relationship between wars and drug prohibition – although with countries who prefer a constant state of warfare the cause and effect are a bit less obvious.
Obviously, the answer to our pro crime drug policies that enrich criminals and punish addicts, low level gang members, taxpayers and crime victims is either repeal or adoption of actual measurable drug standards that actually deal with drugs proven to be harmful based on exceeding thresholds for harm established with legitimate studies and a drug education curriculum based on the actual problems related to drugs that have little to do with the drug used and a lot to do with irresponsible drug use. As I state in my book [that meets these minimal criteria] the problem is that those with influence actually promote irresponsible drug use to maximize sales and profit.
We have more than enough tools to ensure justice. They are derived from common law and our Constitution. The problem is that access to the legal process is expensive and out of the reach of most people – especially if the criminal can deny access by spending more money than the crime victim. And today there are many companies who can outlast federal regulators funded by tax dollars. If access to justice was as easy as having a legitimate grievance, legitimate companies would have an incentive to develop a process or partnership that would work outside the punitive legal system to quickly resolve and correct problems with consumers, workers, and neighbors. It can be done. I know because I developed such a process in my lifetime involving adversaries with unequal influence and power – that worked and was easy to implement. I do find common cause with conservatives who whine about our country having too many lawyers [90% of world's total]. Their solution to cap potential damages is so bogus since the beneficiaries of current glut of lawyers are NOT big companies. We need a legal system where money is irrelevant and where “cashing in on deep pockets” is equally irrelevant if such suits are tossed out as being done in bad faith. This is where incentives for a process that engages business and community in meaningful dialog to compensate those injured and end abusive practices rather than “payback”. But then again our media glorify vengeance – especially against the “Bond villains” who don’t exist in real life.
