Libertarians Advocate Drug Legalization: Recipe For Escalating Societal Decay

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The statists are getting nervous as they see the anti-prohibition camps gaining momentum. The prohibitionists are cranking up the propoganda mills in an effort to staunch the debate. Their desperation is showing. Absolutely. Then of course Roscoe starts this thread out with L bashing, then whines like a baby when fewer and fewer people jump on the bandwagon. It's great and getting better all the time! He'll be flagging the rest of the statist for backup. Blackbird.

A libertarian society is exactly the way to accomplish this; families will have the time to spend with their children when we end the War On Drugs and the taxes that support it. Mothers will be able to stay home with their children and teach them these values; study after study shows the benefit of 2-parent households. We can't have many of those by stealing money from both parents, thus forcing both to work outside the home.

So all of these two parent households are working because they'd rather not have that second car, really nice clothes, makeup, golf and getting their nails done? Two parent households don't exist in large numbers because neither parent is willing to make the sacrifice of staying home with their child or children. I am the daughter of immigrants whose parents went without in order to rear their children. As did many other lower middle class people of that era. If parents had the same goals today they would make the same choices.

Libertarianism holds freedom of choice above all other values, and is loathe to penalize except in the most flagrant, unavoidable cases. Libertarianism may have some thing to offer the country, but only when part of the eclectic mix already arrived at by the electorate. They will never gain but a slight amount of steam, because more people than not perceive the results of pure libertarianism as an economic, defense of state, socially devolving abyss.

In other words, "social conservatives" admit that they are pet program socialists.

Not at all. I think it means "social conservatives", have a deep rooted personal understanding and appreciation for traditional beliefs and values that stipulate, human beings follow a code, that distingishes, what is right from what is wrong. Social conservatives have a deep moral and spiritual compass, that promotes a society based on the principle of law and order, and not, chaos and anarchy.

Ahh! 'SOCIETY' powerful corporate lobbies attempting to control and tax the particulars of the twisting of your minds. (alcohol and the A.M.A.) Reality is a greater decay of individual freedom and true liberty. This is the great country which is the bastion of freedom, where the possesion of a plant which countless generations have, with the grace of God, partaken should allow masked government thugs to pillage your possessions and send you to jail to be sodomized.

If not legalizing drugs, we should at least not jail people for just using them. However, people who use drugs and then commit crimes, while on the drugs, should have the book at them. But if they use drugs and just zone out in their own little corner, leave them alone. Basically, treat drugs like we presently treat alcohol.

For the record, I do not use illegal drugs, I never have used them, and I have no desire to use them. If I wanted to use them, I had every opportunity during college. (Heck, I was sometimes the only person at a party not getting stoned.) However, I do consume large amounts of caffeine. More seriously, I take prescription medication for Attention Deficit Disorder and/or Depression.

I'm glad that drugs are illegal. If they weren't, people would probably use them.

I think you are right. It remains to be seen if they would all "like" them and continue using them, but surely without social stigma and with ready availability many would try them who otherwise would have passed.

Libertarianism insists on personal responsibility, which is good. But "too many are far from the self-restrained, healthy type envisaged by democratic theory" (Ernest Van den Haag).

Which is why some things are illegal.

Not to nag, or anything, but what constitutional foundation exists to support Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970?

The basic constitutionality of the act is not addressed because it is not even arguable. Congress can legislate under the Commerce Clause. The ONLY issue was one of delegation, can Congress delegate it's legislative authority to an executive-branch agency. Again, under fairly settled law, Congress can so long as it limits the discretion of the agency and provides the overall structure/guidance to the agency in the grant of delegation, and so long as the agency follows established principles of administrative law (due process, review and comment, etc).

Yes this essay sure makes sense. It's a good thing that drugs are illegal and unobtainable. Imagine all the people that would run out to find drugs so they could become addicts...if drug became legal! Everybody I know would go looking for drugs if that happened. Because of the war on drugs, there just aren't any drugs to be found. That is why we don't have any drug users and addicts. I vote we stay drug free as a nation.....like it is now!

I don't know that I actually expect a lucid response here, but I'll ask anyway.

In every one of these threads, you insist that Libertarians and those who oppose the Wo(s)D are "dope-smokers" and "pro-druggie". Many in the thread, myself included, then assert that we do not use drugs of any kind and oppose their use from a social perspective, i.e. would not personally associate with drug users. You ignore those responses and continue to call all Libertarians "Pro-druggie dopeheads".

So, either you believe that every one of us is lying, or you choose to be intellectually dishonest and continue to use qualifiers that you know are untrue. Which, may I ask, is it?

One of the biggest problems this country has is people like you. My way or no way, mentality. The person that wrote this bs article, said it all when he he mentioned he was a proffesional in the criminal justice system. Its a bread and butter issue for this person, keep the money rolling in for this insane drug war. Typical dogooders, I know whats best for you. Lets ban something pot, tobacco, greasy hamburgers or whatever else catches their attention. More criminals = more money for the system.

Basically, treat drugs like we presently treat alcohol.

I agree. What's so hard to understand about that? Why should we treat other drugs any differently than we do alcohol?

Alcohol is ~~probably~~ the most dangerous drug available, but I don't hear any of the "Drug Warriors" calling for a return to prohibition.

Probably because too many of them are addicted to their nightly martini or six-pack.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.