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.

You asked why your constitutional sincerity was being questioned. Here is merely one example of why. You made this statement at post #437:

Law abiding citizens/societies have every right to restrict personal behavior of individuals, that they deem harmful to society at large. You may consider that socialism, but you'd be wrong. Its law and order that reigns supreme in a civilized society and not chaos and anarchy.

I & two others replied, in detail, but we received little real argument to our comments that your ideas do indeed show a type of socialistic thinking. -- You simply deny the reality of your own words.

You are certainly NOT a 'conservative', in any conventional sense of the word.

I'm not concerned at all, how a braindead libertarian like you, views my political philosophy. I've been involved in politics, in one way, shape or form for the last 35 years. I've knocked heads with the best. I'm confident in my conservative beliefs and traditional American values. I love my country, I've served my country and I don't need to be told by a vermin like you, who I am, how I should think, or what I should believe in. Stuff it, bucko!

You Libertarians have no power, influence or credibility in American politics and never will. Stop attempting to convince people, you know what you're talking about. No ones paying any attention to you and after this reply, I won't be either. The majority of FReepers don't agree with you, or with the extremism of the Libertarian Party Platform.

"which is within very broad limits your business, have to do with the question of drug legalization?"

Well there it is. The infinite illogical conclusion that whatsoever ye do in the privacy of one's home (often involving the nose, the arm, and/or a needle) Never Never Never affects anyone outside the home. Tell you what Mr. Brilliant, go do a survey of various security companies around the good ole U.S. of A, and ask them how they feel about their employees doing drugs in their homes. Ask Microsoft how it feels about their employees (programmers, system analysts, accountants, etc) doing drugs at home in their own "private" setting. Ask the school teachers, firemen, police officers, principals, clergymen, and neurosurgeons how THEY feel about it. Ask them if they think it wont affect them in the least if someone next door shoots up/ingests LSD on a weekly basis. Then get back to me.

It bears repeating: The intrusive unconstitutional internal war you fail to denounce is a primary cause of the social decay you so often decry. To support the intrusive unconstitutional internal war is to support a self-destructive level of government power and an insult to the dignity of every citizen. Every moment that you fail to grasp this fact will most assuredly extend the tragedy further.

I can't in good conscience give my support to legalization because that would be a promotion of vice, not virtue. There is no redeeming value in drug usage. Parents don't need the extra burden of having to deal with easy access. Its hard enough to raise a child without having to deal with societal acceptance of dangerous substances.

That said, the CA government is a disgusting hypocrite for legalizing a drug like RU-486 on the market, which is far more dangerous that smoking pot and some of the other less harmful narcotics. I am sure Uncle Sam is just itching to follow suit and make the drug available nationwide! Apparently, it is okay with the government if you kill your preborn with a dangerous drug, but not okay to kill yourself by heroin, etc.

Thanks for responding to my post.

If your view is the prevailing view among Libertarians then they are a party I could easily vote for. Their website while informative reads as if they've learned nothing about the science and art of governing these last two hundred years. Their belief in the ability to establish rule without the necessity of compromise, is breathtaking and juvenile.

I didn't have a chance to read all of the various planks listed on the site, but their view of how the military should be run would mean we wouldn't even be able to defend ourselves sufficiently should the need arise. I find it hard to believe that they believe their own pronouncements. I had a better impression of them before I visited their website.

By the way, you truly are a classic liberal judging from your replies to my questions. And there is hardly another philosophy around in which you're in such good company.

A majority of Americans fully support the national drug control policy. They consider illicit drug use immoral behavior that undermines the social fabric of our great nation. Efforts to reduce illicit drug use through intervention and incareration, are equally worthy and just causes for our government to be involved in. And they are constitutional. The only thing I will denounce, are the dealers, dopers and drug kingpins, who continue to break the law and who must be removed from society, asap. You do the crime, you do the time. Lock them up and throw away the key!

In addition, those people who support legalization and who act as enablers to these low life scum drug dealers/users, should be ashamed of themselves. There is absolutely no redeeming social value in the use of these drugs. And the idea that these anti-drug efforts are really a war on the American people, is specious rhetoric and an utterly ridiculous contention to make.

You're the one whose constantly whining and crying, about cocaine, heroin, marijuana and other illicit drugs, not being readily available for you to purchase and ingest. LOL Talk about being ill-informed! Your beliefs and values add to the social degradation of our nation and teaches our children no respect for the law of the land, or the rights of others. Support of drug use, is nothing but degeneration, both a moral and intellectual decadence.

Frankly, your libertarian morals come from the the toilet. I suggest you flush, more often.

What was the point of this tread, anyway? Possibly to smear Libertarians?

It seems like Dems (Dems often, because of their stance on gun control) and Repubs both like to smear Libertarians. It's obvious Libertarians are more of threat to the Republican base though, even though there are some Libertarians that lean left of center on economical issues. And not all Libertarians are Randians. Personally, I'm an independant, with some libertarian tendencies...I'm not the type to walk into a voting booth and mindlessly pull all the Dem levers or all the Republican levers. Some would accuse me of being left-of-center on some issues, because I believe Labor Unions played a large role in making a prominent middle-class a reality in this country. Of course, just as one example, I'll state that I like the idea of private property, before a reactionary accuses me of being a Stalin worshipping communist.

Anyway, whether or not this thread was a smear tactic, it's been an interesting debate to read.

You are right about that. There are a lot of "civilized" (Regan Man's definition) people who are WOD profiteers; lawyers and drug pushers, federal agencies, LEOs, etc. all have a vested interest in keeping drugs illegal. I wouldn't be surprised if Regan Man is among these ilk.

Our God given freedoms have been usurped by a bunch of Godless thieving jacals who would sell us back our liberty.

Mark, thanks for the reply. You should listen to you mother ;) (although I don't always listen to mine...heh). As far as the history, I know Theodore Roosevelt gave an ear to Upton Sinclair after he wrote "The Jungle" ... but, I really don't have the time to research all the arguments regarding whether or not the actual creation of FDA was unconstitutional (and I'm not gonna take your word for it that it wasn't), although a quick google search seems to reveal that the FDA people have engaged in a few Constitutionally questionable activities from time to time.

Anyway, suffice it say for now, that I have plenty bitches about the WoD. The WoD has been blatantly unsuccessful as to its stated purpose (but it has been successful at fattening up agencies like the DEA, enriching their outlaw drug cartel counterparts due price inflation, etc.), and, I think the WoD has done substantionally more harm then good to our country.

Also, here's a couple links you and others might enjoy reading (whether or not you agree with them in whole or in part... I don't agree with every point in the articles myself), if you haven't seen them.

A special report by a Libertarian on the War on Drugs, that brings up the issues of slavery
and the 13th Amendment: http://injusticeline.com/slave2.html

And: http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/black/sp001675.html

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.