Libertarians Advocate Drug Legalization: Recipe For Escalating Societal Decay

GOPUSA.COM ^ | May.16,2002 | Carol Devine-Molin

[Reagan Man]

The Libertarian Party and like-minded think tanks and policy research centers, most notably the Cato Institute, are proponents of drug legalization. It's said to be an idea whose time has come. Foremost, Libertarians hold to the philosophical stance that individual freedom and responsibility are paramount, requiring strong limits on the role of government. Libertarians claim that the current policy of drug prohibition in fact violates individual liberties. Although Conservatives as a group generally espouse a Libertarian bent, social Conservatives in particular are not purists regarding government intervention, especially when they perceive a threat to the greater good of the citizenry.

Moreover, Libertarians believe that drug legalization is congruent with the notion of "harm reduction", which purports that society actually incurs more damage from stringent drug laws than from the effects of drug usage itself. They cite the negative consequences of our current "prohibitionist" drug policy, which directly led to the creation of a black market, limited drug availability resulting in high drug costs, violence and turf wars in efforts to compete for significant profits, and a burgeoning, expensive criminal justice system. Ostensibly, if drug legalization were to be implemented, availability of drugs would increase, prices would drop markedly, and drug crime and drug trafficking would all but disappear. Moreover, the size and cost of the current criminal justice system would be significantly reduced, a tremendous bonus to the taxpayers. And of course, as a compassionate society, we would offer rehabilitation for those substance users who seek help in kicking their drug habits, a minor price to pay in the scheme of things. Out with the old paradigm, and in with the new paradigm.

The Real Deal--Consequences of Drug Legalization:

Sounds terrific, right? But it's an inaccurate representation of how legalization of drugs would impact our culture. In truth, there would be increases in both drug activity and concomitant social ills and other antisocial behaviors linked to substance abuse, all of which would have a profoundly deleterious effect on our populace. The dysfunctions and problems associated with addiction would probably not manifest to a significant degree in the criminal courts, although we would expect to see a higher number of Driving While Impaired and Assault offenses. Undoubtedly, automobile and workplace accidents would become more commonplace. However, the most profound impact of drug legalization would be reflected in the sharp rise of various social ills and accompanying activity in the family/juvenile court systems, with growing demands upon social service agencies and treatment programs. Addicts often become cross-addicted, so also anticipate more widespread difficulties with alcohol, prescription drug abuse, gambling, etc. The greater prevalence of child abuse and neglect, teenage pregnancies, domestic violence, divorce, juvenile delinquency and other types of societal dysfunction would particularly stress public sector programs paid by the taxpayers. So forget about saving all that tax money, which will be needed to provide government services. Moreover, enacting drug legalization would fail to send the salient message to our youth that indulging in drugs is morally wrong, placing all substance abusers, and those around them, at risk for physical, psychological, and spiritual damage.

A review of the "Dutch Model" demonstrates that drug activity, particularly marijuana usage, has increased with the softening of drug laws and drug policy in the Netherlands. And our nation had some similar experience in the state of Alaska, with the decriminalization of up to four ounces of marijuana between 1975 and 1991. Reportedly, use of that drug went up significantly among Alaskan youth during the referenced time frame. Noteworthy, the marijuana of today is many times more potent than the marijuana available in the 1960's and the 1970's. It is more addictive, and more debilitating than the older versions of the substance, and now often requires intensive treatment for recovery. Beyond marijuana, Ecstasy and other designer drugs, and purer quality heroin and cocaine, will continue to be part of the drug scene.

The Status of the Drug Culture:

As a professional in the field of criminal justice, utilizing both law enforcement and social work skills, I've personally observed an escalation in societal decay, especially since the mid-1990's due to the prevalence of drug usage among those sentenced to community-based supervision. And there is supporting statistical data to demonstrate that substance abuse activity has gone up in recent years, despite the propaganda put forth by the prior Clinton administration. Regarding FBI drug arrest figures, (estimated at 14 million in 1999), these numbers had risen a whopping 36% during the decade 1990 - 1999, with a marked increase in resulting drug convictions. For further information, please refer to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, "Crime in the United States -1999", Section IV, "Persons Arrested". Current drug crime statistics are about the same. But why hasn't the media underscored this salient information for the public? And why hasn't the media "connected the dots" for the citizenry, explaining how drug abuse is directly linked to societal ills?

For more than a decade, the media correctly noted that aggregate crime numbers were down, including violent crime and property crime. But the media was remiss in failing to examine specific types of offenses that statistically increased, seemingly incongruent with overall crime trends. Regarding drug crime particularly, one wonders if the Liberal-leaning media was reluctant to embarrass the ensconced Democratic administration (1993-2000), which was intent on spinning the notion that all crime was declining, supposedly due to Democratic policies and efforts involving great expenditures of money and resources.

But we must ask ourselves why hard-core usage and accompanying drug activity is not responsive to the aggressive policing and negative sanctions effective with most other types of crime. I believe that the situation is complicated by the nature of addiction, which is all encompassing, and often blurs reasoning and the ability to respond appropriately to the threat of punishment and the pressures brought by the court system. Addiction is not just a physiological or psychological phenomenon, but a moral dysfunction as well. It drives those under its influence to engage in the most decadent behaviors, criminal and otherwise.

From years of societal experience with the drug culture, the public is well aware of the depths of depravity, which can be exhibited by addicts. Since the public is more or less cognizant that this population of hard-core users has remained unabridged, they instinctively sense that society is still at great risk for the emergence of additional drug related crime and drug related social pathologies. The media and politicians can laud the overall drop in crime all they want, but the public realizes that drug activity will continue into the foreseeable future with its attending social dysfunction. The public also understands that the degenerate drug culture constantly spawns new addicts to replace those who have perished from the likes of disease, overdose, and street crime. Clearly, the drug culture will only become worse if drug legalization is enacted.

Is Treatment The Answer?

Many criminal justice and mental health professionals tell us that treatment is the solution to substance abuse problems. However, the truth is that the vast majority of chemical dependency programs are ineffective for hard-core drug abusers. From years of monitoring and auditing cases, I can state unequivocally that most, if not all, drug addicts are in a revolving door of various intervention programs, routinely walking out of both residential and outpatient care before completion of treatment. I'm in agreement with calls for providing intensive drug intervention to criminals who are incarcerated, a captive audience, if you will, who would be required to successfully participate and complete treatment as a requirement of their sentence. This leverage may induce the addict-criminal to fulfill program requirements. Although not a panacea, coerced treatment would at least improve the odds of long-term recovery.

Unfortunately, the relapse rate for addicts is overwhelming, with individuals participating in numerous programs over the years before maintaining any real sobriety. In fact, if drug abusers haven't died at an early age from their risky life style, and are lucky enough to make it to middle age, they generally are motivated to seek recovery from addiction only because their bodies are so racked with physical infirmities that they are finally willing and able to maintain abstinence. To make matters worse, hard core drug users have a very negative impact on family members and those around them, inflicting a variety of damage including criminal victimization, child abuse/neglect, domestic violence, passing congenital abnormalities to offspring, and spreading disease. And these individuals collaterally affected by the addict experience severe and ongoing emotional and physical disability, whether or not the addict is eventually removed from the situation via incarceration, death or abandonment. The greater society is also impacted since they are exposed to the dysfunction of the family and friends of addicts, and must provide treatment and interventions for them, as well.

Conclusion:

Legalization of drugs would increase substance abuse, especially among youth, and would cause social pathologies to flourish to an even greater extent than they are flourishing now. Government programs to address the societal problems, spawned by the growing substance abuse culture, would augment the size of the public sector and reliance on taxpayer monies. In effect, drug legalization would spur negative consequences across the societal spectrum.

Clearly, the Libertarian viewpoint on drugs is patently wrong-headed, and would have a profoundly pernicious effect upon our culture. But beyond the question of drug legalization, we as a society must make it a priority to inculcate values in our youth, and help them build character, so that they can be equipped to resist the temptation of drug usage under any circumstances.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

The Constitution gives the Federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. The power to ban the import and export of commodities as part of "regulate" was tested rather early on with the banning of the slave trade. The banning of interstate commerce in goods originating from Cuba is a more recent example. And the States of course always had the power to regulate intrastate commerce and have done so.

I do believe libertarians are generally against these sorts Constitutional provisions as they conflict with libertarian principles as much as liberals are against the 2nd amendment. Therefore it is quite fair to say that both oppose the Constitution although on different points.

[sheltonmac]

"Fatty foods and illicit drugs have nothing in common and to make such a link, shows a shallow understanding of the serious issue of drug abuse in America."

They are linked. If it can be deemed acceptable for the federal government to overstep its constitutional bounds and ban illicit drugs, how much of a stretch is it to assume they can and will do the same thing with fatty foods? Heart disease is supposedly one of the biggest killers in America, more deadly than illicit drugs. Doing something for "the future of America's children" is certainly noble but the war on drugs—to the extent that it federalizes what should be a state and local issue—is unconstitutional. To think that it isn't shows a shallow understanding of the serious issue of constitution abuse in America.

[Reagan Man]

......why is it that the US was decidedly more free and so very dynamic in the days when "drugs" were legal and Coke had cocaine?

More free? I think your imagining that's the way it was. Ingesting drugs doesn't mean your more free. America wasn't more free 80 years ago. Women were just given the right to vote and minority voting, especially in the old south, was looked upon in an unfavorable manner. There were a whole lotta poor people living in America, both black and white, and the average America lived to the ripe old age of 50-55. Come on!

I don't think you realize, just how good you have it today. You're living in the greatest nation in world history.

[Libertarian Billy Graham]

Is it really just a popular sentiment, encouraged by the successors to the teetotaling temperance bitty's, that has driven this issue to annoyance?

It would seem as though you have put your finger on it Thumper--but Mrs. Graham has been taking after me lately and insisting that I hold soccer dads and church men equally responsible for the crimes that I normally attribute to evil soccer moms and church ladies. And, as usual, she's right, so I guess I'd say its more like the successors to teetotaling temperance bittys and insane and hypocritical men like Andrew Comstock, Elliot Ness, and Harry Anslinger that are most responsible for these crimes.

To learn about individualist libertarian women who opposed the bittys in the 19th century click here

[Reagan Man]

If it can be deemed acceptable for the federal government to overstep its constitutional bounds and ban illicit drugs, how much of a stretch is it to assume they can and will do the same thing with fatty foods?

I know where you are coming from, but to intelligent folks, I think the comparison is in poor taste. No pun intented.

Hypothetically speaking, anything is possible, of course. So you may have a point about the food police. But I don't see the comparisons between illicit drugs and fatty foods/heart disease, at least not the way you're looking at it. There is a small group of people, who are trying to overplay their hand and win a big payout in the courts. In their defense, the approach these people are taking, is about dishonest advertsing tactics. Lying about the content of fat in fast foods, could ring true to a jury. At least on the surface, these possible court cases have more validity, then the law suits brought against cigarette manufacturers did.

I understand the Constitution and the national drug control policy of the US. The national drug control policy isn't unconstitutional.

[Mark Bahner]

So the entire government is corrupt and the American people are a bunch of fools and idiots.

Well, let's put it this way: For the first ~150 years this country existed, after the end of the Revolutionary War, federal government spending never exceed about 5% of the national income, during peacetime. (And it was usually more like 3-4%.) Now, federal government spending is 25% of national income.

In all that time, there have been NO amendments that authorized the federal government to spend major money on new areas (like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Education, Agriculture, Energy, etc. etc. etc.). So the federal government has done ALL these things outside The Law. And The Sheeple have stood by all let the federal government do all those illegal things (and, of course, tax The Sheeple to pay for them...though the Republicans like to run deficits to force The Sheeple's CHILDREN to pay for things).

Yeah, I'd say the federal government is corrupt. And the people are fools and idiots...or they simply don't give a #@$% about their freedom. (I see a lot of that on "Free" Republic.)

In fact, look at what we're doing on THIS board...debating whether or not the federal government should spend a lot of our tax money doing something it clearly is NOT authorized to do; meanwhile, I seriously doubt whether any of the people on this board wrote a letter to G.W. Bush telling him he is a corrupt tyrant, for signing away our free speech (on CFR). (I didn't do that because I'm sure he already knows what *I* think of him...as I made it very clear before the election.)

Nowhere in the Constitution, is anything mentioned about any of thsese historical papers. My point was and still is, the US Constitution, is the only lawful document, that guides the Congress in its legislative process for making law.

Your "point" is ludicrous. And you've already demonstrated it with your "interpretation" of the "commerce clause." You take "regulate" to include "completely bringing to a halt." But that's as ridiculous as if the Constitution said, "The federal government should help The People be gay"...and you now interpret that to mean that the federal government should encourage homosexuality! "Gay" did NOT mean "homosexual" back when the Constitution was written, and "regulate commerce...among the several states" did NOT mean, "prohibit the travel of certain goods between states"! (Let alone the even MORE ludicrous, "Ban anything everywhere that MIGHT at some time cross a state line!")

Once again, read an American history book. Read why the Founding Fathers (the signers of the Constitution) WROTE the Constitution. One of the huge reasons was to INCREASE the unimpeded flow of goods between states! That was a DEFECT in the Articles of Confederation--that states could pass laws restricting trade with other states--that the Constitution was meant to remedy!

If the Founding Fathers wanted the people to have their full understanding and interpretation of the Constitution, they should have spelled out precisely what they meant the document to mean.

I'm an engineer. We engineers have a saying, "You can never make something idiot-proof. Idiots are too clever!" You wish that the Founding Fathers would have "idiot-proofed" the Constitution. But they never expected The People to be so totally devoid of knowledge of history and civics, that The People would ever LET elected officials butcher the "commerce" and "general welfare" clauses the way they are currently being butchered! (And the way in which YOU approve!) As Franklin said, when asked about the type of new government, "A Republic, ma'am. If you can keep it." (May not be an exact quote.)

I support much of the original intentions of the what the Founding Fathers had in mind for the Constitution, however, that doesn't make these so-called, associated documents, relevent to the current state of affairs.

Our freedoms exist only to the extent that We, The People care to argue/agitate/revolt for them. When we have citizens who accept the absolute BS that federal officials feed them about the Constitution, we lose our freedoms. Exactly as we've lost the freedom to keep 25% of our income free from federal government control.

I obviously can't--and wouldn't bother to, even if I could--force you to pick up a history book, and read about why the commerce clause was put into the Constitution, to correct the perceived flaw in the Articles of Confederation. If you don't care about the federal government not following the intent of the Constitution...well, it's your (and my, unfortunately!) loss.

Gotta get to bed. (The first 2 hours of my work tomorrow are to pay unconstitutional money to the federal government...:-( )

[HiTech RedNeck]

Several individuals have written that alcohol consumption, was literally cut in half under prohibition.

That little, eh. Some "success." Oh, and what about what KIND of alcohol was consumed during that era. Few people bothered with wine and even fewer with beer. Hard liquor was the tipple of choice; it packed the biggest punch in the smallest package. Today it's pretty much the opposite.

[dcwusmc]

Hi roscoe. Have you ever served in the US Armed Forces?

[dcwusmc]

Wanna come over to MY house and say that to my face? Have you ever served in thd US Armed Forces?

[jwalsh07]

To: Roscoe

Hi roscoe. Have you ever served in the US Armed Forces?

268 posted on 5/17/02 12:42 AM Eastern by dcwusmc To: Rightwing Conspiratr1

Wanna come over to MY house and say that to my face? Have you ever served in thd US Armed Forces?

269 posted on 5/17/02 12:43 AM Eastern by dcwusmc

Are you giving away money to veterans?

[wardaddy]

Fifty Republics governing in fifty unique ways, with constitutionally guaranteed rights for its citizens, would work if given the chance.

I'm sorry but I must respectfully disagree.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Wanna come over to MY house and say that to my face? Have you ever served in thd US Armed Forces?

I think you'll have to clarify what it is that's got you so incensed.

[Hermes37]

They have a tasp now. The droud technology has been researched for years. Luckily, mostly by doctors.(a loose interpretation of the word in some cases) Anyone who can follow directions, can assemble a coil of wire (or 4) and hook it to a CD player. CD contains reverse MRI data to modify thought patterns. It is totally non-invasive now, and unregulated. (gasp ;) Tinfoil may not be enough, lead or mu-metal(sp?) may be needed! We better ban the reverse engineering of electronic devices lest the sheeple gain access to the thought altering technology!!!! Oh, we did that already...the DMCA will protect the sheeple! Current law forbids anyone to even question the technology employed as it is ill-eagle to look. I'll bet one could find an organlegger TODAY to install a plug for a droud. Who needs clones, let's make more sheeple!(we can use the opt-out model)

[budwiesest]

However, the most profound impact of drug legalization would be reflected in the sharp rise of various social ills and accompanying activity in the family/juvenile court systems, with growing demands upon social service agencies and treatment programs.

When social ills are at an all-time high, one cannot have a 'sharp rise' in them. (Many brought to you by the nanny state, BTW).

indulging in drugs is morally wrong, placing all substance abusers, and those around them, at risk for physical, psychological, and spiritual damage.

Since the topic appears to be the legislating of 'morality' let's take it a bit further, shall we:
How about a law that puts Jimmy Swaggert's ass in jail the next time he's caught with prostitutes (or for crying about it).
Another law suspending Oral Robert's $3Mill pleas for dough, less he be called 'home'.
And finally, a law forbidding the wearing of obscene layers of caked-on make-up while trying to shake down the flock as in Jim and Tammy Faye Baker.
Does your burqua loose it's effectiveness on the bedpost overnight?

[Don Myers]

We have enough drugs polluting our society now, and the Libertarians want to legalize everything. Dumb.

[wardaddy]

I do not disagree with you in totality but I would point out two particular areas where we diverge:

1) Drug abuse does not happen in a vacum whether illegal or not.

2) Equivocating all drugs from nicotine to fentanyl as equally problematic is simply incorrect in my opinion.

Some drugs like nicotine, alcohol, or and pot to a degree are drugs that either have minimal intoxication inherently or may be consumed with that in mind. Pot barely qualifies in that regard these days given the quality of most sensemilla. Any drug beyond that realm is literally only abused. That is...it is taken to get rather high...not just relaxed or a little "buzzed". Last October, I was in emergency for an inflamed colon...yep middle age sucks LOL....anyhow they gave me an IV (slowly registered) of 16 mg of morphine and 100 mg of pheneragn as a kicker and anti-emitic. Man ...that was the highest I've been in over 20 years. I am VERY familiar with personal drug use and beyond. It felt so damn good ...I refused to nod and couldn't wait to get home a couple of hours later to lay on the couch and have a cigar and enjoy my high. Now, if I were able to go buy liquid morphine on a whim, would I go home and just pull out my works and shoot myself up on the sofa with a good dose while my wife is cooking supper and my soon to be 4 children are watching cartoons. The mere thought of that level of intoxication readily available for anyone is crazy. We have enough problems with drunks at home or work or in their cars. One could say the same about acid or crack or crank or X or God forbid Ketamine. I don't know how anyone can use these types of drugs responsibly and not affect those around them or society in general. There is a reason that even in the third world where pharmacies are very lax, they don't hand out morphine sulfate ampules like candy.

That's my perspective as an adult and a parent. I have a feeling quite a few of the pro-drug crowd on FR will sing a different tune when and if they enter family life....especially with regards to hard drugs.

I've watched 30 years of drug use and drug dealing and can tell you that no drug use is totally benign and rarely productive. I haven't smoked pot in 20 years but there was a time I thought it was something I would do forever. "Da herb! Mon" it's natural and all that. I was so naive.

I think the pro-drug camp on this forum is of two minds. One are the dopers who have a personal stake in legalization and the other are Libertarians and a few Conservatives who oppose it strictly on privacy grounds. While I may be a little sympathetic with the latter reasoning, I simply cannot support total legalization of all drugs.

Regards.

[wardaddy]

IMO legalization in some form with some kind of taxation would save money, and it would not make the problems we have now worse

Nor do I think it would cure anything. The solution of the drug problem will be found beyond legalization or the WOD. It's a root cause issue but I don't think that's easily fixed either. In fact I think it's gotten worse since my childhood. I fear many of our young folks have never known a time when decency (however imperfect) was the norm. It's sad. Legalizing is like giving up.

[budwiesest]

I fear many of our young folks have never known a time when decency (however imperfect) was the norm.

I'm with you here. Some young folks (depending on how far back you wish to go) have had to endure the mandatory car seat, else their parents paid a heavy fine to the state. Others have watched as their friends have been victims of zero tolerance laws and placed in jails by the state for what may have seemed to them pretty benign possession violations. Seat belt laws, bicycle helmet laws, yup, it's like you say-- some young folks have never known a time when decency was the norm.

When I was about 4yrs. old, I got separated from my family by crossing a street (a busy downtown intersection- lots of people all around me so I just went with the flow) when a cop noticed that I was lost. He took me home (no one was there, they were now looking for me) so he drove me back and we found my mom, brothers and sisters. Today, they'd have taken me to a receiving home and my mom would probably be charged with some negeligence statute. You're so right, things have changed.

[apochromat]

Since you don't want to be at all specific about your drugs, would you disagree with the idea of replacing various chemical tests with a single uniform performance test?

[wardaddy]

While our personal morality and responsibility collectively has slumped into the abyss, our thirst for a nanny state to compensate has surged. Further we are more concerned about not offending folks to be willing to address the truth. It's a bloody mess to be sure, I had hoped 9-11 would have one good effect and snap us out of this morass ...it did for about a week and now we're back..FUBAR as bad as ever. Our only cure is a cataclysm beyond what I would even like to imagine. Basically, hard times tends to snap folks back to reality. In the last century, it was the depression and WWII. Not a very desirable cure for the ills my generation (boomers) have visited upon all of us.