Social Issues Fri Sep 18 2009

Local Conservatives and Libertarians Debate the War on Drugs

By Richard Lorenc

On Wednesday night I moderated a lively debate on drug policy between the conservatives and libertarians who comprise the Chicago chapter of America's Future Foundation (AFF). I asked the question: "Is the War on Drugs good public policy?"

As you'd expect, there was disagreement between the two libertarians and three conservatives on the panel. I introduced the debate with a picture of the War on Drugs 40 years on.

The War on Drugs began in 1969 under Richard Nixon. He called drug abuse a "a serious national threat," and called for a national anti-drug policy at the federal level. He coined the "War on Drugs" in 1971 (NPR, Timeline: America's War on Drugs).

39 years later, drug arrests in the U.S. fell to 1.7 million in 2008 from a peak of more than 1.8 million in 2007 (Reason Magazine, Drug Arrests Headed Down?). Marijuana accounted for about half of all drug arrests, and 9 of 10 pot arrests were for possession, not sale or cultivation (Reason Magazine).

The United States spends $40 billion each year to shut down the supply of illegal drugs, and arrests 1.5 million each year for drug offenses. The Economist writes, "tougher drug laws are the main reason why one in five black American men spend some time behind bars" (The Economist, Failed States and Failed Policies: How to stop the drug wars).

The picture is worse overseas, particularly in Mexico. More than 800 policemen and soldiers have been killed in Mexico since December 2006 (The Economist). Realizing old drug control policies weren't working, Mexico recently decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and crystal meth for personal use (Wall Street Journal, Mexico's Hopeless Drug War).

I had a chance today to ask one follow-up question to four of the five panelists, two from each side of the debate.

How would you change the execution of the War on Drugs to make it more effective? How would you play "hardball?"
Sheriff Mark Curran, Lake County: "I would secure the borders since almost 100% of the cocaine and heroin in this country comes from or through Mexico. We need to engage in tough trade negotiations with those problem countries that will not properly address the issues regarding the growth and supply of these substances beyond their borders."

How would removing the stigma of illegal drug use help society overall?
Ralph Conner, Local Legislation Manager, the Heartland Institute: "The stigma of illegal drug usage is only relevant in environments demanded for elected officials aspiring to lie their way into higher office, i.e. 'I used to smoke but never really inhaled.' Coke usage by upper-middle class corporate elites in socially acceptable venues or in private dens will continue unabated without regard to the whims of a nanny state or rules of decorum based upon an observed ethic of prohibition. In other words, fewer Americans care about any stinking stigma."

You said "the drug trade is a business like any other." How does pushing it underground make people safer?
Collin Corbett, President, Next Generation Republicans: "It's a misnomer that legalizing narcotics would make them less prevalent in society. Demand would decrease, but this would come at the expense of an increase in supply. More drugs on the street is not the answer. Our focus must be on keeping our children and families safe, which require national tools and resources to combat what has become an international business, while increasing our focus on reducing demand in the US."

If drugs were to be regulated and taxed like alcohol or cigarettes, what's to prevent the trade from staying underground?
Jennifer Koerner, Sudler Sotheby's: "I believe the reason that drugs, if legalized, would not remain underground is a simple economic one. There is a significant risk premium to doing business on the black market. A legitimate above board business could produce a safer, legal product for much less cost and risk to workers AND to users. Why would a user buy product that is potentially unsafe when a safer and more accessible product is available? In addition, any underground producers would be subject to arrest and imprisonment. The underground market would quickly realize that it no longer pays to be in the drug business."

To wit, conservatives want stricter enforcement of current laws, while libertarians want to put the kibosh on prohibition altogether. Both sides believe their ideas will promote a more stable society in which liberty thrives.

This is the sort of debate AFF lives for.

Join AFF for its next roundtable on torture. For details, sign up for AFF's mailing list.