The Libertarian Party's Policy on Drugs is Contradictory

Or, How Liberty and Freedom Can Sometimes Be a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

Introduction


    I've been a Libertarian for a long time now.  George W. Bush Jr was the last Republican I voted for.  I have experienced addiction and now I am a drug counselor.  And in conversations with other Libertarians, I've come across a conflict that I wanted to explain here.

    It does something like this.  My fellow Libertarians explain that the only way for the masses to have freedom is if all drugs were made entirely legal in the United States.

    Yet when you ask them to account for the addictive nature of the drug and how that robs people of their freedom by consuming their entire life, they deny that this is how drugs work.

    So here I am, trying to explain what I'd like to see the Libertarian party do to fix this.

The Facts About Drugs

    First of all, we know that many things are addictive.  But what is one of the main halmarks of addiction?

    For example, the DSM-5's criteria for Opioid Use Disorder via ASAM include things like:

    This is a picture of a person who has no freedom because opioids have taken over that person's life.  It sounds like the opposite of freedom.  The person is essentialy chained to the drug.

    The picture of the addict is someone who is consumed.  This paints the opposite picture of freedom.

    Yet we're to believe that the best thing for the populace is to make all drugs legal?

The Facts About Drug Enabled Paradises

    Another thing that many libertarians bring up is how other countries have legalized drugs and experienced basically a drug paradise on earth.  This may be, but there are many factors I believe aren't being accounted for in this hasty generalization.

    First, we have no proof that crime went down because of drugs being made legal.  Indeed, in such countries, when drugs became legal, many stopped even accounting for drugs when it comes to other crimes.  Why account for something that's now legal?  But the problem is we don't have any data, therefore, on whether crimes are being influenced by drugs or not.  For instance, we don't know how many domestic violence crimes are caused by spouses that are high because there's no reporting now.

    Second, and perhaps the bigger problem, is that we are not like other countries.  The cultures of countries are massive and complex.  What works in one country cannot be guaranteed to work in another.  Especially not in western cultures where the individual is exalted over society.  This is seen in how Canada still experiences problems with drugs, for example, despite being almost identical to European countries where drugs were entirely legalized.

    Yet Libertarians I've spoken with think the solution is to legalize everything.  They call it the victimless crime.  The problem is drugs are not a victimless crime.  Plenty of crimes are committed while high.  To say they're not would be hilarious if it were not so tragically myopic.  The problem is even if someone isn't harming anyone else, they are often harming themselves.  The Libertarian opinion seems to say that if someone is an emaciated opiate addict living under a bridge, that this is ok because it's their freedom.  It is their freedom, sure, but can you really say you care about the masses if you would just let them destroy themselves this way?  Surely some things are universally bad.

    Mind you, my opinion is not that we should throw all drug users in jail.  Jail is quickly becoming the new sanitarium.  But we should help them.

The Facts About Moderation

    Libertarians like to act like one can easily engage in drugs in moderation.  I've literally heard Libertarians tell me one can engage in cocaine in moderation.  Some things are almost too crazy to believe.

    First, cocaine is the one drug that, above all others, will become problematic after first use.  It is the most addictive substance, last I checked.

    But second of all, as a drug counselor, SO MANY of my clients tell me they first tried certain drugs like heroin just because they were bored.  It then quickly became problematic.  So the evidence, in my experience, just doesn't exist.  I realize in my job, I'm going to meet only the ones for whom one time use was not good.  I get it.  But still, so many of them exist that this cannot be a minority.

Common Ground

    Sure, I do not say that Libertarian Policy is entirely wrong.  I am against the general overtones of the war on drugs.  I don't think the solution, just for public intoxication or possession, should immediately be incarceration.  Most states in the US, for example, have drug courts.  These drug courts do their best to get those with simple drug arrests into programs rather than into prison.  I am entirely in favor of the Drug Court concept.

    And I think that those who only had simple possession charges should probably be freed from prison so they can get help.  We need more rehabilitation, and given the FBI's own 75% recidivism rate metric, our prisons fail at rehabilitating.

    However, the problem with the Libertarian statement that the war on drugs has pitted citizens against police is not entirely correct.  It's mostly incorrect, in my estimation, because drugs are mostly sold by cartels and gangs.  Gangs were already pitted against the police because they're organized crime.  That's not a reflection on the war on drugs.

    And also, with all due respect, even if the laws need to be changed in your country, to knowingly violate them for illicit drugs means that the Libertarian principle of individual responsibility should take over here.  But that principle is nowhere to be found when the subject of drugs comes up.  It's like Libertarians exempt this principle when drugs come up.  Whether fair or not, laws exist, and to knowingly violate them just for drugs is pretty pathetic.  It's a very immature decision.  Fight the laws and change them then.

Conclusion

    I think this is the #1 area where most people are turned off by the Libertarian party, or at least one area.  It's actually rather sane to believe that a policy of mass legalization is horrible.  Where is the line in the sane between complete illegality and complete legality for drugs?  I don't know.  But I don't think it lies in complete legality of drugs.  The opposite of addiction is social connections, and Western society is too individualistic for complete legality, in my opinion.

    So honestly, drugs are one of the #1 enemies of personal liberty, freedom, and responsibility.  To be in favor of unleashing them on the populace is just irresponsible.