An op-ed in the LA Times posed this question today. The author, Jeffrey A. Miron, is certainly no bleeding liberal. He is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, and a senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard.
The article appears on both the LA Times and the Cato Institute web sites where it is titled “Drugs and Conservatives Should Go Together.†Miron doesn’t mince words. He says that opposition to the drug war should be a no-brainer for conservatives, but with few exceptions (the late William Buckley being one prominent dissenter), they have been staunch supporters.
Legalization of drugs, the writer asserts, would promote longstanding policy objectives that are “near and dear†to conservatives’ hearts, and he discusses them in great detail. Briefly, he says it would help in the Afghan war, illegal immigration, the war on terror, and on gun control. But beyond this, he says that legalization is consistent with “broad conservative principles.â€
Drug prohibition is a fiscal black hole that we are pouring money into, with little if any to show for it. Drugs are readily available on the street in most cities, and repeated studies have shown no decrease in drug use. Plus, we could tax drugs if they were legalized, just as we tax tobacco and alcohol. It’s a double whammy that costs us nearly 100 billion dollars a year.
Conservatives say they want government strictly limited to the specific powers detailed in the Constitution. But nowhere in that document will you find any mention of powers to outlaw specific products. As he points out, it was necessary to pass the 18th Amendment to implement Prohibition, but no such amendment has ever been suggested to outlaw drugs, a glaring inconsistency.
Of course, an even more glaring inconsistency is the legal status of tobacco and alcohol. Here, Miron strays a little into his libertarian philosophy, saying that drug prohibition is “hopelessly inconsistent with allegiance to free markets,†which he interprets to mean that businesses should be able to “sell whatever products they wish, even if the products could be dangerous.â€
I guess it depends on the degree of danger. Children shouldn’t be allowed to buy sticks of dynamite over-the-counter, one would presume. But he is certainly right that the risks of drug abuse…especially marijuana…are no greater and probably less than either tobacco or alcohol. Consistency demands, he says, treating drugs just like those other products.
This is a very broad-brush summary of a generally well-written piece, but in his final point I think he really gets it wrong. He says that conservatives could help themselves politically by supporting legalization. Many voters, he says, are confused by conservatives support for government intervention in what should be a private matter. It is inconsistent with underlying conservative principles.
I think he is overlooking the fact that many people who consider themselves conservatives are from the Religious Right, and their widely held view is that drug use is associated with immorality, including prostitution, promiscuity, homosexuality and all those other ways of wickedness condemned in the Bible.
Any move to support legalization would split the conservative vote right down the middle. A more perfect wedge issue I cannot imagine.
So, despite the logic of Mr. Miron, don’t look for a conservative turnaround on this issue any time soon.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 37
Now they've got a tiger by the tail and can't let go.
But don't go back into the Bible Belt.
They would probably lynch you...and then say that they did it for your own good.
Count me in that group Bert. I deplore even those who are not the "Bible thumpers" entering politics. History has shown that it is way too dangerous.
The price of the war on drugs is probably more than the $100 billion you mentioned...a lot more...but the cost is many times that amount. Not included in the $100 billion plus are other costs such as an increased crime rate which means higher insurance premiums for everyone AND a forfeiture of a great portion of the security a peaceful society would enjoy...lost income tax due to the incarceration of non violent drug users, most of whom HAD jobs and supported families before being locked up for a victimless crime. Now the state must support the non violent offender, and in many cases, help support his family.
The above examples are just a small portion of the costs not reported as the price of the war on drugs.
But even if cost were not a consideration...the issue is still one of government interference with personal liberties.
Californian's should visit here and make that call....http://control.mpp.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=52161.0&dlv_id=42241
now I think I shall go roll some of my legal pot!
I think it should be legalized.
Period.
Whether the government criminalizes it or makes it legal and earn revenue from the trade, the consequences will be bad. There really is no "correct" answer.
That's a broad generalization Dennis. The consequences are multifaceted. If, for example, the tax revenue from the sale of formally illegal substances is used to provide better treatment for those who abuse the use of the drugs...and this effect is more successful than putting the users in jail...would this be a bad consequence? If the now legally obtained drugs are of a higher quality, meaning that none of commonly found dangerous contaminants of many street drugs are present...would this be a bad consequence? If the crime and the violence associated with the distributional and sale of illegal drugs were eliminated and our societies were safer than before...would this be a bad consequence? If there were no need to reuse syringes and spread disease because of the exposure to infections and infectious diseases...bad consequence or not? If the money being wasted to fight an "war on drugs" was used for other constructive purposes... bad consequence or not?
I can add to these Dennis...but the often over looked consideration is that of the government's interference in the private affairs of its citizens. If the argument is that our government has the authority to protect us from ourselves...then make that argument. Provide evidence that the war on drugs...to protect of from harming ourselves, is different from a war on obesity in which the consumption of fast food is deemed illegal....feeding our children junk food is deemed illegal...driving in the rain...driving sub compact cars on the interstate, ridding motorcycles, bicycles, skateboards, snow boards, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol....
There IS a "correct" answer....get the government the fuck out of matters of individual rights...individual and private affairs.
Please pardon my tone....it wasn't directed at you...but rather at the standing but not reasonable notion that our government's responsibility includes judgmental and often arbitrary legislation concerning the suppression of individual rights and actions....as articulately defined by John Stuart Mill in his "Harm Principle" which I will quote here and which should be the litmus test for ALL government intervention in private matters.
"That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
You are assuming that drug use will increase if it is legalized. The drug war has not decreased drug usage measurably, so why would its cessation cause usage to increase?
Hopefully, an increase in funding for education programs would cause a decrease.
Only in our dreams Michael only in our dreams :->)
No one knows what would happen if it were legalized. I admit that hooked users might increase usage. What we need to do is get much more aggressive in the schools, explaining and demonstrating the horrors of addiction...how it can wreck your life.
But while on the subject of the effects of the use of certain substances....let's examine the use of the substances called food. Consume too much food and the effects on you AND your family and society as a whole are negative. Your health will suffer which affects you, your family and burdens the rest of society with sharing the costs of the now increased risk to your health. Perhaps legislation should be enacted that limits the consumption of food to no more than 2000 calories a day....or maybe the consumption of Pop Tarts should be banned...all junk food should be unlawful. Get caught with a Twinkie...go to prison. Now society is burdened with the cost of your care and support while in prison AND, if you are the bread winner for your family, most likely some of the costs of caring for your family...and the income taxes that you paid before you were sent to prison are no longer being paid. Over weight? Your health risks include a greater chance of type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and stroke, metabolic syndrome, certain types of cancer, sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, gallbladder disease, fatty liver disease, pregnancy complications and other risks too numerous to list. What is the correct answer for the problem of obesity (which affects you, your family and society as a whole)?
So...there is no "correct answer"...correct answer for what? The correct answer is that of personal responsibility...but personal responsibility cannot be legislated. Is the question one of the rights of the individual or is the question one of each person taking optimal care of himself? Very few people take optimal care of themselves. Certainly, the effect of each person taking optimal care of himself would better than the negative effects of NOT taking optimal care of himself....but just where must the individual responsible yield to government mandates?
Only in our dreams Michael only in our dreams :->)
Correct answers exist regardless of the possibility of those answers being adopted. But I'm glad the prospect of restoring individual rights is a dream of yours also Dennis.
I have never used illegal drugs. There was a time when I thought I wanted to try marijuana, but I don't smoke, which was the main way to ingest it...although people have told me you can put it in brownies...or even spaghetti sauce! But I just never did it...not because of any moral misgivings...I guess I was never interested enough to bother.
If drugs were legalized tomorrow, I still would never use them.
So I don't have a dog in this hunt...except that I agree with all of the arguments in Miron's essay.
(You left out that it makes great soup. My wife unknowingly tried it :-D)
As long as the food with the pot is heated...in order to release the THC...anything goes. Pot has a taste that is similar to oregano...so choosing a dish that incorporates oregano or marjoram blends the taste to what the dish would be expected to taste like without the pot.
You just haven't lived a full life Bert...until you have partaken of the magic weed.
Right now my drug of choice comes from the grape.
In passing, the whisky rebellion didn't happen long after the tea party.