Libertarian Conservatives, Part 2
December 14th, 2009 | 
Author: The drug war. A colossal waste of money and manpower with results that should have been expected considering the disaster that was prohibition, a war on alcohol that succeeded in veritably creating organized crime in this country. Of course, it would not be the first time clear lessons of history were completely ignored by our government, but it is no less frustrating.
The libertarian stance on drugs has been a political white elephant for the party. In my political strategy articles I admonish libertarians to put their position on drugs on the back burner. Even in cases where a candidate has not mentioned drugs, it tends to be brought up by opponents because it is a hot-button, emotionally charged issue that when attacked in sound-bite form tends to make the libertarian under fire look like a crazy extremist. The only defense is to downplay the issue and point out the silliness of the attack and hope that it gets dropped. That said, I would like to let the conservatives out there in on the reasoning behind the drug stance in the libertarian platform. It is, for many conservatives seeking a new home, a deal killer for joining the libertarian party. I can assure you that a position of drug freedom is not just a justification for a bunch of pot-heads as libertarian opponents like to claim. There is method, reasoning, and honest philosophy to our madness.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this piece, one of the biggest reasons to loosen the restrictions on drugs is found in the lessons of prohibition in the 1920s. Not only were the laws broken by many people, turning otherwise good, law abiding citizens into criminals, but the money all went into the black market and funded a massive growth in gangs and organized crime. Basically, the criminal types were given lots and lots of money, crime truly paid in those days. Men like Al Capone and the attrocities committed by his ilk would never have existed without the government trying to criminalize a vice. The same is happening with the drug war. Legalization and a shift to “controlled substance” status for most drugs would all but eliminate the drug cartels. Also, massive amounts of money would be saved in law enforcement, and a huge reduction in the prison population and cost would also result, not to mention the potential for sales tax revenue. It just makes good economic sense to stop pouring money down a hole just because it makes people feel like something is being done about a perceived drug problem.
Of course, there is the response that we should not do the “wrong thing” just to save money. But is it the wrong thing to grant freedom? The basic philosophical position behind decriminalizing drugs is that there should be no victimless crime. If someone is only hurting themselves, and they are an adult capable of making thier own choices, then they should have the freedom to do as they wish. The restriction of persons from doing themselves harm is just a restriction of freedom, and an example of the nanny state in action. If we can restrict someone from using drugs, then we can restrict them from overeating or drinking sodas or smoking or whatever else that is deemed unhealthy or harmful. If you are going to be an honest supporter of individual freedom then you have to be consistent, regardless of your personal feelings about a specific activity.
I am not interested in drugs, I am a fairly health-oriented person. I am, however, interested in freedom, and I see no reason to change that position just because of the damage that drugs can do to a person. That may sound cold and heartless, but its not. I think taking away freedom is the most heartless thing that can be done, and the government has no right to do so. In fact, according to our constitution, our government is bound to protect freedom, not take it away. So are libertarians in support of legalizing drugs? Yes, but we have good reasoning for that position. If you are a lover of freedom, then you should be in support of legalizing drugs, even if you fight against them personally to the extent you are legally allowed to.
Posted in 
Tags:
The War on Drugs is an affront to “true” American values. Only through taxation and regulation will we get a handle on our nations drug problems. People need to start motivating themselves with reason instead of ideology.
“Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.”
Abraham Lincoln, U.S. President. 18 Dec. 1840
One of Lincoln’s insightful quotes, thank you for including it. It is indeed a matter of self-restraint and wisdom that prevents people from making bad choices. When the responsibility ofr such choices is removed and placed in the hands of the government, it only serves to reduce the wisdom on the population. I don’t have a problem with ideology per se, but it has to be an ideology that includes or is tempered by reason. Freedom comes with responsibility and risk, you cannot have freedom without consequence. Of course, you cannot remove consequence without consequences of its own. We not only lose freedom, we place our fate in the hands of men no better than ourselves, and no more able to make a wise choice.
Good morning Mr. Smith,
I was provided your link from Stand Up for America (okay my husband is the writer, hence the name) and I am very impressed with your writing. These days there are so many people who have no home in the current political structure. With that, they have decided everyone is corrupt and have decided they do not care about what happens to them from a government standpoint. The Libertarian stance provide a good middle ground for those who are just fed up. How do we stop the Libertarian party from becoming corrupt like the others?
I understand the concept of a victimless crime but a parent who abuses drugs could have a harmful affect on their children by not being in the right state of mind to take care of their children. Is that still victimless? Do the authorities intervene then on behalf of the children?
Certainly such a crime would not be “victimless”, but it would fall under negligence laws rather than drug laws. The government may still intervene in cases, to what extent is a whole discussion unto itself. I take issue with a lot of government “intervention” because I don’t think they should be usurping power over families. On the other hand there may be cases where it is necessary, as in the example you bring up. Still, the laws concerning drugs would not change. It is sort of like alcohol is now, driving under the influence or committing crimes of negligence are addressed specifically, rather than by punishing the person for drinking.
that is a great question, I should do a piece on that. I think one of the key things we would have to do is make certain that we push for certain changes in legislation in the early days of the party reaching a point of real influence, I.e. we get enough libertarians in congress to put some legislation on the floor for a vote. The first things would involve them putting a “rod unto themselves” such as term limits and opening up of the voting system to make third party competition easier in the future. Another thing might be to enforce a legislative system that did not permit earmarks or unrelated issues to be placed in bills. These things I believe would be done by libertarians early on, before corruption has a chance to creep in. It would be very important to get those things accomplished early.
I will put some more thought into this question and try to find a more thorough answer. Thank you so much for your comment, and for your support of your husband’s blog. Both your comments and posts there and the enormous amount of time you both have to spend on it, I appreciate the sacrifice that tepresents for you both.
Cheers
Jon
FYI
The ONLY reason Marijuana is illegal is due to a conspiracy between three rich men. a government bureaucrat, “Racism,
Fear. Protection of Corporate Profits,
Yellow Journalism. Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators Personal Career Advancement and Greed” along
yellow journalism and perjured testimony.
(Mellon, DuPont, Hearst and Anslinger)
Any intelligent, open minded person who had done sufficient research on marijuana knows it should be legal as there is nothing wrong with it and there is a lot of good with it.
http://tni.com/110405
Hello Jon,
The ONLY reason Marijuana is illegal is due to a conspiracy between three rich men. a government bureaucrat, “Racism,
Fear. Protection of Corporate Profits,
Yellow Journalism. Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators Personal Career Advancement and Greed” along
yellow journalism and perjured testimony.
(Mellon, DuPont, Hearst and Anslinger)
Any intelligent, open minded person who had done sufficient research on marijuana knows it should be legal as there is nothing wrong with it and there is a lot of good with it.
We could save millions if not billions a year by releaseing the some
400,000 who are in prison ONLY due to anti-pot laws.
Thanks for your time
Neil
Agreed. Even if a case could be made for certain drugs to remain illegal, pot would certainly not be one of them.
I’ve always believed that laws restricting our freedom from victimless crimes, be it drug prohibition or sodomy, are passed out of fear of human nature. People who support giving away freedom simply have lost faith in their fellow man and believe that everyone must be forced to behave otherwise society would crumble into murderous anarchy.
For me realizing I shared libertarian beliefs stemmed from my rejection of hating human nature that is steeped in modern American culture. I flat out reject the argument that if drugs were legalized we would have a huge increase in the number of addicts. People will not stop caring and trying to intervene in the lives of their friends and family simply because something that was illegal became legal.
What really bothers me about this issue is how both liberals and conservatives agree drugs should be illegal, but for different reasons. Liberals argue about the costs to society of legalizing drugs, while conservatives tend to argue the morality of drug use. By far the worst group are those who argue for the legalization of pot, but agree that “harder” drugs should remain illegal. If only we could have learned anything from prohibition!
I like the reasoning behind the support for drug legalization, and I’ll admit that this is still new for me. I’ve generally opposed it in the past on moral grounds, and on the risk I feel we are all exposed to when one is under the influence of several “harder core” drugs. I support freedom more, though, and I think that abuse certainly wouldn’t be any worse if legalized than it is now.
What I am uncomfortable with is this. Jason commented above: “Only through taxation and regulation will we get a handle on our nations drug problems.” As a lover of individual rights, I’m generally leery of any argument that sounds like: ” Only through taxation and regulation will we get a handle on {insert social condition here}” It just seems ironic to me that we’d want more government control to insure more individual freedom.
Agreed, I am uncomfortable with that as well. Taxation and regulation are not solutions. In the short-run, it may be a step in the right direction to tax and regulate what is now totally illegal, but in the long run, it is just a step towards actual freedom.