Why We Should End the War on Drugs

Nick Gillespie’s piece in the New York Times on legalization of drugs (along with gambling and prostitution) is wrong, wrong, wrong.  Not the conclusion, but the manner in which he makes the case.  Gillespie is far too glib about a subject that should be treated quite seriously.  In doing so he undermines both the legalization movement and libertarians—adding credence to the image of libertarians as a bunch of hippies who just want to smoke their weed in peace.

The thrust of Gillespie’s argument is two-fold (to be fair, he does raise the more serious points towards the end of the piece).  First, that everyone should be free to use drugs as they please; we should live and let live. In other words, drugs ain’t so bad.  But this free-wheeling romanticism of Woodstock ignores the real harm done to countless families by drug addiction and abuse (as well as compulsive gambling and prostitution).  This is not the place for that debate—but a social conservative armed with a plethora of anecdotes would demolish Gillespie’s argument, and anyone perceived to have this attitude towards drugs could be easily dismissed in a serious policy discussion.

Gillespie’s primary argument is that we can tax drugs and fund government off the revenue.  But this is hardly a libertarian argument.  In fact, taken to its logical conclusion, government should not only tax drugs, but should run the drug trade itself, in order to maximize profit.  If buying heroin from the city seems farfetched (perhaps not for Chicagoans), consider that this is the justification for state-run liquor stores, government-run lotteries, and government’s overly heavy hand (bordering on partnership) in casino gambling.  Gillespie’s argument might appeal to the Times audience, but is persuasive to neither conservatives nor libertarians.

Instead, advocates of de-criminalization should lay out the argument thus:

• The War on Drugs is a failure.  Those who want illegal drugs obtain illegal drugs. All of the problems with drug abuse and addiction have occurred in spite of, and arguably exacerbated because of, drug criminalization.

• The War on Drugs is costly—American taxpayers spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year policing the streets against drugs, fighting drug cartels overseas, imprisoning drug violators, and building new prisons for new drug offenders.

• Drug criminalization results in increased violence.  A large percentage of inner-city violent crime is tied to drug dealing and trafficking.  Mexico has seen a massive spike in drug violence between the cartels—7,000 drug-related murders last year alone—violence which is spilling over to US border states.  Note that even conservative Tom Tancredo, best known for his staunch opposition to illegal immigration, is now supporting drug de-criminalization. 

• Drug prohibition enriches gangs, drug cartels, and Al Qaeda—all of whom profit from the black market.  Yes, that’s right, the War on Drugs is undermining the War on Terror.  Those who support drug prohibition are helping the terrorists.  Taxpayers even funded ads pointing out this fact—or at least that buying drugs funded terrorists, not that our drug policy does so.  We should be letting Wal-Mart and Rite Aid profit off the drug trade—not because of the tax revenue, but because they won’t use the profits to blow up buildings. 

• Drug criminalization destroys families.  Millions of drug offenders are in prison, thousands have been murdered in the drug trade, and countless others have chosen a life of crime—and abandonment of their family—because of the profitable of selling illegal drugs.  You want to know why there are so many single parent homes, particularly among urban African-Americans?  It is largely due to US drug policy. 

These points are all incontrovertible, and they should be persuasive to conservative, libertarian, and liberal audiences alike.  I will add one more—if the US legalized drugs, drug used would not increase substantially.  This is certainly subject to debate, but given the evidence from other countries, and the fact that the US has the strictest drug laws and the highest rate of drug use, likely accurate.  Focusing on destructive impact of drug criminalization and the “War on Drugs”—not an argument about collecting more tax revenue, or about the morality of drug use—is a much more serious policy debate.  And one, I think, that leaves little doubt that Americans would be best served by ending drug prohibition.