Most people who read me know that, in my Christian faith I am personally quite conservative. They also know that, politically I am a Libertarian. I am often asked about what outsiders often perceive to be inconsistencies in those positions. The two areas on which I am most frequently challenged are the LP positions on abortion and drug legalization. I have already recently addressed my position on abortion in light of both philosophical stands, so I feel it is only natural for me to clarify my position on drug decriminalization, especially in light of my current political campaign.

First, let me start by saying I more strongly support drug decriminalization rather than complete legalization. While this distinction may appear to be a matter of mere semantics, it is not, as the latter position is essentially government sponsorship of the drug trade, which, I feel is destructive, whereas the former is a merely neutral position, which I feel is more in keeping with the legitimate role of the government as defined by the US Constitution. I hope to get back to this point later.

The first reason I feel that our drug laws are wrongly based is that we have two sets of justice. We all know the story of rock stars who get busted with drugs at airports, and receive no criminal consequences for their actions, but it's not limited to those of such lofty status. In our own backyard in the Texas panhandle, the area District Attorney was arrested on various drug and other charges and finally pled to lesser weapons charges that are essentially a slap on the wrist considering that during his tenure he argued repeatedly for extremely harsh sentences for drug offenders that he was responsible for prosecuting. The poor and under educated do not receive such favorable treatment, but often suffer long incarceration that hinders their upward mobility by removing them from the workforce for lengthy periods of time. Because they are often in and out of jail for their usage, they remain at base level employment, and the economy suffers from their lessened earnings, and their families suffer from the absence of a wage earner, a parent, and the long term effects of an individual who is unable to hold down continual, gainful employment. While it is fair to question the morals of an individual who continually uses and even abuses drugs, incarcerating someone because of a moral lapse is like taking a skilsaw to cut out a cancerous growth: it may remove the growth, but it will inflict far more damage than it repairs.

"But", the decriminalization opponent will argue, "drug use is disproportionately a factor of crime, and even violent crime". And this statement is absolutely correct. But using it as a basis for anti-drug laws is, in essence, committing the same logical error as gun control proponents use in enacting anti-gun laws: it targets the instrument, rather than the individual. The individual is ALWAYS responsible for crimes, whether under the influence of drugs or not. And just as the use of handguns in the commission of a crime can reasonably be construed as an aggravating factor in sentencing, allowing for additional time to be added to the sentence, being under the influence of drugs (INCLUDING alcohol), can and should reasonably be construed as an aggravating factor in sentencing, allowing for additional time to be served. The drunk driver, for instance, who kills a carful of kids, should be sentenced for the crime itself as well as the aggravating factor of being under the influence. But the majority of crimes do not involve the "casual user" who uses within their own home and does not allow themselves to be put in a position where their impaired state might influence them to commit a crime they might not commit if they were sober.

In my stance on drug decriminalization, I am NOT advocating for drug use. That is up to the individual, who is responsible not only for the use, but for the potential consequences of such use. I believe that drugs have a net negative effect on productivity and quality of life in general, but that their responsible use can have a net positive effect. To achieve the latter results, we need to educate, not legislate, as the late Peter McWilliams advised in his book "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do", a comprehensive treatise on consensual crimes involving adult participants. By enacting an outright ban on certain drugs, we effectively eliminate constructive debate on how and why they may be used in a positive manner. A good example of how education, rather than legislation works is where alcohol is concerned. Several years of campaigns by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and similar organizations have led to a greater awareness of the consequences of driving under the influence of alcohol. The campaign revolves around how coupling an impairment with an action can have negative consequences, NOT on how the impairment itself can have negative consequences.

The other, completely legitimate argument brought out by opponents of decriminalization is the increased medical costs brought about by long time substance abusers who increase the insurance costs of others. The answer to this is a radical change in how insurance premiums are set. Insurance companies have a right to increase premiums for high risk behaviours such as skydiving and auto racing, as well they should: they're likely to pay out more. They should have an equal and compelling right to increase premiums for high risk behaviours such as drug use (as well as unprotected, promiscuous sex...but that's another blog entirely). As the statistical likelihoood of payment increases, so should premiums.

Now, then, why do I favor decriminalization and not legalization? Most of the legalization argument revolves around the idea of taxing these drugs heavily. The problem arises when you consider that the tax actually would encourage drug use, and that the government conflict of interest would lead to increased use of these drugs, which is not the desired effect of most activists. Decriminalization, on the other hand, would not encourage the use of drugs, but rather employ a "don't ask, don't tell" approach as far as the government is concerned. What you do on your own time, on your own property is your own concern.

I'm sure there are a lot of individuals who take issue with my position, even as I stated it. And I welcome a healthy debate. But if you examine the facts extensively, I think you'll begin to understand the decriminalization position somewhat better. At least, I hope so.