Featured image by Jeff Hollett. Follow the link for more of this artist’s work.
One of my coworkers asked me what I thought about Oregon’s decriminalization measure that passed during this election cycle. Having had a chance to do some digging, I think that this is a valuable first step, and signs that a libertarian issue can actually have some traction among the general public.
I myself don’t do drugs (I already have my own issues and problems as it is). And many in the Libertarian party get that stereotype. Believe me it’s well deserved. When I was part of my college’s Libertarian Party, we did an earth day sale where we sold brownies in pots, a deliciously tongue in cheek reference to that stereotype. But I am an ardent believer in personal responsibility, and I also don’t believe that something has to be illegal to prevent me from doing it. Drugs are simply one of those things that fall into that category. I’ve seen the damage that drugs can do to people, and I don’t wish to lose control of myself that way.
What appeals to me in the decriminalization of illicit drugs are a few arguments. First, decriminalization of illicit drug possession helps to remove both the stigma and the taboo of those drugs. Many people who deal with drug addiction avoid seeking help specifically because they fear they will be arrested and ruin their lives. This is a hard thing to avoid and is firmly rooted in reality. In California, simple possession of a substance like cocaine is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail, or a felony (if the person has a prior conviction) with up to three years in prison. This is problematic for someone who is genuinely trying to improve their life and get the help they need to manage their addiction. Decriminalization (in Oregon’s case) allows for those crimes to be no more significant that a heavy ticket ($100) which can be waived if the person agrees to get therapy.
This leads into the second appeal. By reducing the penalty and putting the emphasis on getting help, it will reduce the prison population, saving taxpayer money that can be re-allocated elsewhere. I’m all for less government spending.
Additionally, by removing some of the taboo, people may be less drawn to engaging in the behavior. Part of the experience in doing something you shouldn’t is the rush you get when you get away with it. Often times, this creates a feedback loop, creating the desire for the person engaging in the behavior to “chase the high.” Add a dash of tolerance to the mix, and the behavior becomes an ever-increasing problem, interfering and ultimately ruining greater and greater portions of one’s life.
Finally, once these things are driven into the light, it begins to dissolve the black markets that were created by making these things illegal. Again, while I would not personally take drugs, forcing someone to go to a black market in order to get their fix opens them up to being harmed in all sorts of ways. I would rather legalize completely and regulate than endanger someone in that instance.
The War on Drugs is an abject failure. As with many things, the idea that we must wage war on something to “wipe it out,” has never worked, and likely never will. As with all things, injecting the human element corrupts even the most well-intentioned idea (though the war on drugs was never well-intentioned in my opinion). It has adversely affected the lives of so many, and particularly those in poor and minority communities, since usually these sentences can be plead out for therapy if you have the connections (read money).
Decriminalizing the end user is a good first step, and a sign that America is beginning to tire of the war on drugs. We’ve seen strides with Marijuana (another drug I do not use), and hope that this trend continues. Until then, we’ll just wait and see.
A Place 4Politics 