Guest Post by The Zman
For generations now, libertarianism has been synonymous with the legalization of recreational drugs. It is probably a bit unfair, as libertarianism has a lot more to it than just legalizing weed, but there is no getting around the fact that they have been obsessed with the topic for a long time. Libertarians take the broadest possible view on what could be considered recreations drugs. Their belief is that people can figure out for themselves what drugs they should or should not take.
The libertarian case rests on a number of assumptions about the human condition and human organization. One is that people are rational and act in their best interests or what they believe to be their best interests. The other is that you are responsible only for you and you have no duty to your neighbors or community. Those unable to sort their best interests may kill themselves with drugs, but that’s their problem. You and the rest of society have no duty or right to stop them.
Again, there is more to libertarianism than the legalization of drugs, but it makes for a useful entry point to examine their claims about a wide range of things. Their arguments about drugs can be applied to many other areas of life. That is the stock response from libertarians when they are chided about their drug obsession. Although they are extremely careful to avoid being explicit, the same arguments about drugs could be applied to speech, assembly, personal defense and so on.
Unlike most of the claims from libertarians, we now have some real-world experiments in the drug realm to test their claims. Not only have we had drug prohibition, we now have a lot of experience with legalization. We even have the unofficial decriminalization of drugs in several cities now. If the cops are told to ignore open drug use in a city, that is de fact decriminalization. Generations of claims about the drug war can now be measured against the reality of drug legalization.
The easy stuff to look at are the claims about crime. In places that have legalized marijuana, overall crime rates have not changed much. Property crime rates have not changed significantly and violent crime has actually ticked up, but that has happened in areas that did not legalize weed. In the cities that have effectively decriminalized drug use, like Seattle and Portland, crime has gone up significantly, but there are other factors at work in these cities driving the rise in crime.
There are fewer people in the court system for possession charges now, but no reasonable person doubted that claim. If we stopped arresting people for murder, the courts would see a drop in murder cases. The argument for or against legalizing drugs was never about courts of prisons. It is about the overall quality of life. If a big robust criminal justice system is what we need in order to have a high quality of life, only crazy people will complain about that trade-off. Life is nothing but trade-offs.
When you look at what has been happening in the country in total since states began to experiment with drug legalization, a pattern emerges. We have seen a sharp rise in taxes at the state level, some owing to taxes on drug sales, but also a sharp decline in the rule of law. The Western states, where marijuana legalization first started, has seen a collapse in civil order. You have massive homeless camps in Los Angeles, anarchy in Seattle and Portland. Anarcho-tyranny is the rule out west now.
Another point worth mentioning is that the states rushing to legalize drugs have also been some of the worst offenders of Covid lockdowns. California is operating under a bizarre form of martial law. Criminals and bums can run wild in the streets, but normal businesses are being shuttered over Covid. Maine has wrecked their tourist industry over Covid, despite few cases. Massachusetts is operating under a curfew. Maybe these states did not legalize weed for libertarian reasons.
It is important to underscore that the collapse of civil order in drug legalizing states is not caused by drug fiends running the streets. The bums, drug fiends, petty criminals and bourgeois revolutionaries are symptoms of a larger decline in civil order. The image that is beginning to emerge is that drug legalization efforts correspond with a collapse in the willingness of state government to maintain order. The Covid hysteria is probably just another indicator of this collapse in civil order.
There is another angle to the drug legalization claims. For generations, the image of drug legalization promoted by libertarians was that potheads would be growing weed in their backyards and drugstores would be dispensing harder drugs just as they sell products for foot fungus and allergies. If you liked smoking pot, you could grow some plants in the backyard with your artisanal lettuce. If you had a heroin addiction, your doctor would provide a prescription for safe heroin.
On the latter point we have plenty of evidence that the libertarians were completely wrong about legalizing hard drugs. The opioid crisis in America was created by those benign drug companies. The claim for generations was that business would never try to kill its customer base. It turns out that was false. The Sackler family was perfectly willing to genocide the population for a quick buck. Just imagine if they did not have to work through the legal system in order to deliver drugs to people.
We won’t have to wait to learn what would have happened. The marijuana business is well on its way to becoming the marijuana industrial complex. Companies operating what amount to government monopolies in the growing of pot are now worth billions and growing rapidly. When the business plan for billion-dollar corporations with special access to government is built on getting your kids hooked on drugs, it is not hard to predict what will happen. Let a thousand Sacklers bloom.
As with the breakdown in order where drug legalization is popular, the abuses of global capital in the drug trade are a symptom. Former Speaker of the House John Boehner is a marijuana lobbyist now. Former Speaker Paul Ryan is an off-the-books lobbyist in Washington, as he gobbles up corporate donations in preparation for a 2024 presidential run. Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is Managing Director at Moelis & Company, where he lobbies for business deals.
Taken in total, what we will see from the supply side of drug legalization is the same thing we see everywhere with global capital. Instead of government regulating business, it is business regulating government. The state is always the junior partner. It is a form of post-national colonialism, where global corporations extract resources from communities with the support of local politicians. The opioid crisis was just the first wave of what is about to come in the normalization of drug taking.
There are two takeaways from the first wave of drug legalization. One is the results are nothing like what libertarians predicted. The states that are legalizing drugs are not experiencing empty prisons and courtrooms. Crime has not plummeted as the trade has moved from the streets to the strip malls. There may be fewer people in jail for marijuana possession, but that was always a false metric. Those people are now in jail for other crimes now that they cannot plead down to possession.
The other takeaway is that drug legalization is not the point of the libertarian spear, but the leading edge of anarcho-tyranny. The states rushing to legalize drugs are experiencing the most civil unrest. These state governments are not legalizing drugs because they love liberty. They are doing it because they no longer have the will or the desire to maintain order. In fact, drug legalization appears to be a traveling partner of a growing wave of illiberal authoritarianism.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Not sure I can find a bulldozer big enough to push away all the bullshit assumptions and conclusions that filled this rant. But I’ll give it a try.
First, let’s understand what LEGALIZATION is and IS NOT.
Legalization is a situation in which not only are people allowed to legally possess and consume what they wish, but are allowed to manufacture and sell what they wish. That includes freedom extended to pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities, etc. It also includes the rights of businesses to sell what they wish without having to pay outrageous protectionist fees, licenses, permits, etc. in order to be able to engage in the sale, manufacture, growing, etc. of cannabis, heroin, or whatever. It means as well that when someone is interested in purchasing a pain killer for instance, they have broad choices because the competitive market is supplying them. It means that independent certification labs are allowed the freedom to do testing and certification of quality, active ingredients, purity, etc. as demanded by the seller/consumer. In short, it feels like the market in most raw and processed food items in our society, and many manufactured goods as well – to a point. And it requires that individuals ALSO be held personally responsible for the harm they might inflict on another or their property while under the influence (or not under the influence).
What legalization IS NOT, is an environment where a limited number of well-connected businesses get dibs on overpriced licenses, burdened with overpriced regulations and taxes that are so severe that the black market not only remains but provides goods for less than the overtaxed/over-regulated “legal” marketplace does. So long as the black market remains, the crime and problems associated with it remain…big shock. It also is not a situation in which access to drugs is controlled by government-blessed physicians, and the only supply of drugs is provided by government-connected pharmaceutical companies – most of which were forced to add acetaminophen (tylenol) to all of their opiod and non-opiod pain killers in order to purposely destroy the livers of folks who might abuse the drugs, and forced doctors to only prescribe these new tylenol-containing combinations or risk losing their DEA licenses (yes, that is why virtually all pain killers now contain tylenol). For EVERY government regulation, restriction, license, edit, etc. that remains in place, a piece of the black market and the crime/corruption it brings, remains in place, and such markets cannot be considered as examples of “legalization,” by any libertarian standard, even if there may be the perception of greater “freedom.”
Turning a blind eye from a police perspective, does NOT enable the user to purchase what THEY wish, or sellers to be able to obtain pure, quality-controlled products to sell. All of the same tainted, overpriced drugs remain in place, with the accompanying crime to afford purchase, accidental overdoses, etc. going along for the ride. So cities that simply turn a blind eye to free up their police, have not truly understood or addressed the root cause of the problems either, and certainly have not “legalized” anything from a libertarian sense.
To even pretend that ANY of the recent “legalization” actions has ANYTHING to do with the libertarian ideal regarding legalization is to show ones ignorance of both freedom and black markets. In South Dakota there was a measure on the ballot a year or so ago (that failed unfortunately) that would have simply legalized cannabis outright. No limits on growing, no limits on sales, no licenses, no mandates, no taxes, NO ANYTHING. THAT is the libertarian ideal. Of course every other so-called “hard” drug would still have remained illegal, so it would be difficult to separate the new freedom from the maintain authoritarian system when it came to improvements in crime numbers, etc. But at least THAT could have been looked at with regards to cannabis freedom in a true sense. But we do NOT have examples of that….unless you go back to the pre-1920 period around the world, where virtually all cannabis and pharmaceutical drugs (a much smaller number back then), were fully legal in most places to purchase, manufacture, and sell. There were problems for sure with abuse, overdoses, etc., but nothing like we see today.
And as for making the leap to tie Covid authoritarian regimes to those states that have pretended to “legalize,” I really do not know what to say. The deeply ingrained schizophrenia of BOTH major political parties makes legal pot and permanent lockdowns, economic freedom and police kicking down the doors of gays, perfectly acceptable party planks for the two major parties (I exaggerate but you get the point). Internal consistency is NOT to be found in either major party, and let’s be honest – the lockdowns are about Trump hatred more than anything else.
Libertarians certainly acknowledge that utopia is NOT the outcome of complete re-legalization of all consensual activities, substances, etc. People ruin their own lives and they ruin the lives of those who love them. That problem exists with all vices – smoking, alcohol, sex, gambling, eating, and countless other behaviors that can be taken to extreme, cause personal harm, or can impinge upon the relationship one has with others. Libertarians draw a VERY CLEAR LINE. Freedom is about YOU. You may believe that people’s actions and freedoms must be impinged upon to “save them” or “their loved ones,” but unless they are physically harming someone else, such ideology knows only the bounds YOU set as being acceptable….NOT the person whose freedom is being destroyed.
There are those on this site that have serious problems with freedom. I get that. But to try and twist the libertarian ideal regarding drug freedom into what it is not, all to try and make yourself feel better about your fear of freedom, is not an appropriate or well-sustainable way to make one’s case.
And if I have missed an example here in the US or abroad in which the libertarian ideal of drug freedom has actually been tried and failed, please let me know with details and facts. Portugal is one example of complete decriminalization that has been a significant success for over 10 years, but I do not know all the details, and I suspect that while sale and possession are not police matters, there is still a serious lack of freedom with regards to choice, quality, purity, access, etc. thus maintaining at least some semblance of the black market and the problems that come with it. And please don’t bring up welfare, property crimes, or anything of the sort. The libertarian position on those things is also quite clear, and quite consistent with their philosophy on drugs (personal freedom, but also personal responsibility).
Portugal is an interesting case because there’s no way it could happen here.
Yes, they legalized it all across the board, but that’s not the remarkable thing: they handled it all competently. Instead of throwing their citizens away in jails and prisons which steal their potentially most productive years, they give them counseling, encourage them to acquire valuable job skills (which they provide), and, if needed, issue them clean needles to control disease. This took a total coordinated effort by not just government but medicinal professionals and drug counselors (and, obviously, law enforcement), and nobody did it because there was profit in doing so.
They did it because it was the right thing to do for their country. So as you can see, that’s not an option here.
this one, in particular, makes Zman’s point.
Actually, it makes a lot of my points too. In every case, government is still present maintaining the black market, and then there is everything else government has done to create the homeless crisis in the area. There is no protection of private property rights, and 1 billion has been stolen from society to pay government employees to perpetuate the homeless problem. I am not delusional about the problems many will have if drugs are more easily available. I do know that in a free market situation, they would be less expensive, thus reducing the need for crime to support a habit. That city is also one that is a prime example of a Federal Reserve-created housing bubble, combined with restrictive zoning regulations that have destroyed any possibility of lower cost housing options for folks. Once again, government. And I fully realize that libertarian freedoms need to be accompanied by other libertarian actions as they relate to government, but my criticism of the drug piece is founded on the premise that libertarian ideals were being misrepresented by “legal” situations that have nothing to do with freedom or libertarian positions.
This should be posted on its own… I hope “someone” other than I will do so and comment about the intersection of homelessness, drug addiction the decriminalization of “poverty” related crimes.
I think this anarchy seen on the streets of Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, et al… all of our cities of any size will have a large homeless population feeding off the downtown areas, along with the accompanying shelters and drug-treatment facilities.
The intersection of drug dependency, homelessness and decriminalization of all but the most violent crimes is actually the Biden/Harris platform isn’t it?
Congratulations to Admin on the big vote of Confidence.
There’s an increase in crime because
A) Those in positions of power are openly committing flagrant offenses and are not being prosecuted thus placing their imprimatur on criminality.
B) We no longer possess a common culture, thus varying degrees of “morality” have taken root on American soil.
C) Americans have been transformed from citizens- essential members of a cohesive society acting towards common goals- into consumers- atomized individuals measured only by their economic value.
I don’t know how much or how little the decriminalization of a plant has figured into the equation, but experience tells me that there are foundational problems that dwarf this minor issue as far as increased criminality is concerned.
Excellent points, but one not mentioned is that there is an increase in crime due to the fact that there are more laws written everyday on local, state and federal levels.
Somebody famous once said something like ““Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”
Think I remember once something about someone “liberating” some gravel once for a hole in the drive-way.
Believe it was some guy, Hollywood Rob, or maybe a Morman, or possibly I read it on Huffington Post.
Indeed, the desire to escape the current reality for the alternate reality that intoxicating drugs (of all sorts) provide, it indeed a symptom of our current society. While may so-called psychedelic drugs like ayahuasca, psilocybin, peyote, cannabis, and others have been traditionally used in religious ceremonies in human history, they were part of very controlled ceremonies that commanded respect and not abuse. Even tobacco use among Native American tribes was typically ceremonial, while it became part of routine use (and even abuse) among Europeans. Alcohol that was part of religious rituals or meal-time consumption moved beyond to excessive use and abuse. All of these shifts have been symptoms as well of culture.
There is certainly a lot of truth to the belief that until our culture is healed internally, the external decay will only get worse, and indeed, things like destruction of private property rights, destruction of the family unit both from without and within by cultural and governmental influences, lack of respect for individual rights like free speech and more, undermine the foundation upon which people find safety and security in their current, non-drug-induced reality.
I notice that nowhere in this screed is alcohol mentioned. Unless you are calling for alcohol to be as prohibited as other “drugs”, I call bullshit on this hypocrisy. All the illegal drugs in the world have not done half the harm as the one very legal one.
So called Drug Warriors never seem to get the disconnect as they crow about their drug arrests over beers and shots afterwards at the local bar.
It is funny that we seemed to have learned the lesson of alcohol prohibition and have never attempted it again, yet cannot learn the greater lesson it should have taught us.
But then prohibition was NOT ended by society demanding it be ended. The people did not rise up and demand a restoration of freedom and an end to police, judicial, and societal corruption, the non-stop violence in the streets, the at-home drinking and spousal violence, etc. It was ended because the governors of the states were losing SO MUCH TAX REVENUE to the black market liquor industry that they demanded their cash cow be returned to them.
Considering that most illegal drugs are readily available in most places during my whole lifetime. The drug war is an idiotic idea. For me, it’s a freedom issue. Make personal choices and live with them.
Unfortunately, these folks commit crimes to feed their drug habits … and THAT’s the problem … THAT’s where the rubber hits the road … freedom without responsibility — criminal responsibility when appropriate — is chaos and anarchy — as we’ve seen throughout SEA, SFO, NYC, LAX, etc.
One can, with the proper DEA license, purchase 100% pure drugs from folks like Baxter and other chemical companies that manufacture them for control material and calibrator material for use in drug testing assays. These drugs cost 1/20 or less of what they cost on the black market, and are 100% pure (as they necessarily must be for their intended use). The drugs for sale in these cities still cost what they always cost because there is no free market, just a free pass for the gangs to make all the money they can with no penalty. Heroin addicts in Britain on their “maintenance” program, live “normal” lives, smoke pure heroin-laced cigarettes, work normal jobs, and otherwise carry on. Now I don’t support government-paid for drugs or anything of the sort. That most certainly is NOT libertarian. But it shows that many of the serious health issues are about what drugs are “cut” with, the impurities that are part of the final product (which is injected directly into the bloodstream), and are not present when pure drug can be consumed in a safer manner (not that smoking is safe). Bottom line is that we also cannot look at these scenarios as “libertarian” either. And indeed, unless personal responsibility accompanies freedom, all hell is also going to break loose. But then the liberals are turning these folks loose more to punish some, and to get votes from others.
Follow the money. Legalization is the process by which the “elite” muscle in on the business of the cartels.
Certainly the way “legalization” is being handled with regards to cannabis (except the one attempt by South Dakota I noted above). But the government is already making billions if not trillions off the war on drugs. The CIA controlled the entire S.E. Asia heroin market during the Vietnam war, the entire Central America cocaine market (and US crack market) during the 80s and 90s, and now the entire M.E. heroin market out of Afghanistan’s poppy fields. Add to that the trillions they justify in theft of taxes to pay judges, DAs, police, courts, jails, private jails, rehab centers, and so much more, and you can see why they would NEED to control the market when they pretend to “legalize.”
Nothing on pharma and the md prescription pushers? I am not even going to foam at the mouth regarding politicians. HSF pretty much summed it up.
Well, you certainly can’t elevate physicians to god-like status, give them gatekeeper powers over drugs, give pharmaceutical companies monopoly control over markets, and not expect bad things to happen. Once again, government at every turn.
Exactly.