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.

"Reinterpretation over time" of the Constitution has resulted in a bloated and corrupt Federal bureaucracy, which is unionized and mostly Democrat.

I prefer the Amendment process for changing the Constitution.

What drugs are you on? America imports hundreds of tons of drugs from all over the world every single month(*). Right now the midwest is exploding with hard drug use yet it is illegal. Making drugs legal is not my biggest issue or one that I think is very important however to say that because something is illegal people will not do it is insane.

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

I was making an attempt at sarcasm.

Take another read... :-)

Any other specific questions?

Yes.

When you say the Federal government is overstepping its bounds in education and the environment, do you mean that it is acting unconstitutionally?

Hi Chris, Hi Bill
I found this posted earlier on this thread by Mark Bahner
he said it is on back of every Libertarian membership card
what an incredible statement for liberty

''We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose''

Love, Palo

In the last book attributed to Ronald Reagan, "Reagan:In His Own Hand", he wrote in the 1970`s, 'if adults chose to use marijuana, that was their business, but they should be aware of the serious risks involved'. Paraphrasing, of course.

But I will remind you, that President Reagan, presided over the largest increases in funding, for the national drug control policy, in US history. If Reagan wanted to, by executive order he could have removed marijuana from the list of controlled substances. He chose not to. Nuff said.

I can't think of anything much more corrosive on societal order than sanctioning cruel punishment based on arbitrary rules. It's one thing to be concerned about public intoxication, and quite a different thing to violently attack a cultivation practice widely enjoyed when our nation's Constitution was written, without even so much as a constitutional amendment to be thown in as a flimsy excuse for the idiocy of the effort. Perhaps I have understated the severity of all that.

As always, this argument misses the simple fact that anyone can buy any drug he or she wants already. The only question is whether there will be criminals controlling the trillion dollar drug trade, thereby bringing about the corruption of our political and social system as the author so aptly pointed out, or whether we as a democracy shall control the drug trade, thereby eliminating the criminal element, exposing the identities of users so they can be counseled, and decreasing the crime rate by as much as 50%, perhaps more. Before the WOD, there was no societal breakdown due to drug use. It was the profits to be had after criminalization that created the problem to begin with. Now, the only question is whether the transactions are better done in dark corners with no quality control and with the profits creating a new economic elite that will rule the future of the nation, or will be done in the open with a chance to expose the user to the benefits of non-use and a certainty of a reduction in crime.

When you say the Federal government is overstepping its bounds in education and the environment, do you mean that it is acting unconstitutionally?

Definitely yes on the issue of education. Education is a local community issue and the feds have no business in the education of America's children. On the issue of the environment, I'm not completely sure. I'm no expert on environmental issues, but I believe certain things the EPA and Energy Department undertake, concerning the rights of individual American's, is unconstitutional. Much of that responsibility can be handled at the state level.

My biggest concerns are the excessive taxation placed on the American people and the subsequent funding of federal programs with the peoples money. I also believe if the government cut out waste, fraud and abuse, it could probably cut 10%-20% right off the top of the federal budget. That would be a good start to reducing the size and scope of the bloated federal bureaucracy.

Any other specific questions?

Old saying......

"He who CONTROLS a thing...owns it."

So..if the Federal Government (supported by all the panty-waist's who insist that everyone must 'toe the line' that we are all too stupid to know what is best for own selves)...can control (seemingly in total)...then who owns your body??

...or your life for that matter??

redrock

This is the first time I ever voiced in on this issue. I had to break in and say this...Personally, I do not smoke weed. BUT, I hang around and ride with a lot of people who do.

They are all successful individuals(/couples) and Happy. The hard dope I can see your point, but the weed, ...maybe you're not looking at this from a Freedom standpoint. There are a lot of folks who I would much rather hang with high on the weed than others who are drunk.

Those of you who never indulged in anything other than a little Christmas cheer, you're unfortunately out of the conversation. You must know the difference in "High" from alcohol, and weed...In my younger days, I experimented.

As far as Libertarians go?...No Real interest in any present Party.

I appreciate you chiming in on this issue sit-rep. Some people see drug control as a law and order issue. Some see it as a freedom issue. I go with the former.

I grew up in NYCity during the height of the 60`s drug culture and have many experiences from my youth that I will never forget. But I did get around and know whats happening. For a period of time, I even worked in a drug rehabilitation center through my church. So when I talk about drug/alcohol abuse, I'm speaking from direct involvement and first hand knwoledge.

Remember one thing, one joint, a couple lines of coke, a mainline of heroin and you're high. Most people can have a few drinks and not be intoxicated. The same can't be said about illicit drugs. There's a big difference between alcohol and drugs like cocaine, heroin and marijuana. Many people believe marijuana is a harmless drug. Not true.

Btw, are you the same "sit-rep" from the website, "America's Situation Report"? Just curious.

If they want to get high...

For the umpteenth time: there are people who have a principled pro-liberty stance on drugs who do not use drugs. Either you were unaware of that, in which case I hope I've fixed the problem, or you were aware of that, in which case you're intellectually dishonest.

LSD, cocaine, heroin, PCP (God only knows what they'll be harping about in 20 yrs) is OFF LIMITS to my kids.

They is, is they? Seriously--what on earth does how you constrain your children, which is within very broad limits your business, have to do with the question of drug legalization? If there's anyone here who objects to your forbidding your children to use currently illegal drugs, I'd be surprised.

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.