Why Libertarians Should Strongly Object to Drug Legalization

There have been a lot of libertarian arguments for the legalization of drugs.  Although I must say, those are not nearly as prevalent as we saw just a few years ago.  Perhaps the lab experiment in woke jurisdictions have tarnished the idea that decriminalizing crime is good for society.  But, I think it is important to recapture the libertarians who are certainly for public safety, law, and order.  To do so, in my book I outlined how libertarians arrived at the drug legalization theory, and how a true application of libertarian values leads to a strong support of robust drug enforcement.  Here is just one excerpt on that topic…

Milton Friedman appeared on the popular 1980’s television show, Donahue.  Friedman was promoting his bestselling book, Free to Choose.  In his conversation with host Phil Donahue, Friedman said the following:

Donahue:  I assume then that if somebody wants to smoke marijuana, that is their business, too?

 Friedman: That’s his business, absolutely.

 

Donahue: Are we gonna take that to heroin and addictive …

 

Friedman: Absolutely.  Now there, let me go back on that one because that’s a very interesting thing.  Even if on ethical principles, you believe it is right to prevent somebody else from smoking heroin, as a matter of expediency, it’s a terrible mistake.

 

[I]t’s a terrible mistake for society to render heroin illegal, because it increases the harm which heroin does.  Why do we have some much crime in the inner cities and in the cities?  Over fifty percent of it is attributed to crime for the sake of acquiring money to buy heroin.  Why is heroin so expensive? Because it’s illegal.

 

This position merits analysis, and before doing so, one must lay the foundation for small government beliefs.

A Simple Summary of Libertarian Thoughts -  Small government libertarians believed that personal liberty came with economic liberty, and likewise, the loss of economic liberty led to tyranny.  But while the entire premise of the movement was on economic theory, these thinkers were not oblivious to the reality that any society has challenges beyond the basic economic system. 

As we closed the last section with Friedman speaking on a talk show, perhaps we should begin this section with a subsequent appearance on the Donahue show.  In his attempts to persuade the audience toward his positions on the role of government, Freidman put one of his basic premises in the following short summary,

[T]here’s always a case for the government, to some extent, when what two people do affects a third party.

 

Case closed – one needs to look no further than Friedman himself to make the case for drug laws and the enforcement thereof (i.e., government).  But when it came to narcotics, Friedman was wrong – dead wrong.  The disastrous impact of increased drug use resultant from increased availability will be an entire chapter of this book.  But it is worth citing one example on the heels of Friedman’s quotes. 

The Midwest was ravaged by methamphetamine and the resultant  monumental drug and violent crime from the late 1990’s until the middle 2000’s.  This epidemic was not the result of more expensive methamphetamine, but addicts learned how to manufacture it easily, cheaply, and purely (without the dilution of cutting agents used by drug dealers to increase quantities) from the over-the-counter cold medication pseudoephedrine.  Without question, this methamphetamine crisis was caused by the widespread availability of meth at a low cost due to the simplified manufacturing process, the opposite of what Friedman would have predicted.

On Christmas day of 2003, Trooper Nikky Green with the Oklahoma Highway Patrol was called to investigate a suspicious vehicle.  The driver, one Rick Malone, was manufacturing and using methamphetamine in rural Cotton County, Oklahoma.  Malone had recent arrests for possession of methamphetamine and manufacturing of methamphetamine.  Nikky Green, a husband and father of  three young daughters and a foster child, fought for his life for several minutes before he ultimately was executed by Malone.  We know this gut wrenching detail because this tragedy was captured on the dash cam of Green’s patrol car. 

Nikky Green’s name is engraved on the National Law Enforcement Memorial in Washington D.C.; his brave widow, Linda Green, was left to raise their children by herself.  Nikky and Linda’s children are left to grow up without the privilege of having a hero tuck them in bed, watch their school programs, attend their ball games, or walk them down the aisle. 

Friedman, simply misunderstood the drug user – living in the world where most good people of society reside, he actually had no understanding of the drug user at all.  Friedman was right on the economic side of the drug trade in that, if heroin was made fully legal, then it would become cheaper and more widely available.  However, without any evidence or experience in drug enforcement whatsoever, he argues that cheaper and more available heroin (or in the previous example, methamphetamine) would reduce the crime associated with the use of that drug.  Friedman makes no mention of the increased innocent people killed by the increased drug drivers, nor does he say anything about the children of drug addicted parents.  A heroin addict may “fall out” and crash, but what of methamphetamine or PCP users, who are more violent when under the influence (as will be shown later in the book, marijuana should be added to the list of drug whose users often turn violent).

Freidman said when what other people do affects a third party, then the law has a role.  Mill said that as soon as a person’s conduct prejudicially effects the interests of others, the State has jurisdiction over it.  Does outlawing methamphetamine pass Friedman’s most basic test? With tears in their eyes, the family of Nikky Green would say that it does.[i]

[i] Brian Surber, Injustice for All: The (Familiar) Fallacies of Criminal Justice Reform, (True Blue Publishing, LLC, 2021) pp. 35-41.