The Libertarian Party is not a fan of many of the drug war laws in the United States, believing that they create too many criminals out of otherwise consenting adults.  Not that we condone the use of drugs (or the abuse for that matter — any more than we’d condone the misuse or abuse of alcohol).  It’s the fact that prohibitions create black markets for otherwise worthless substances.  Rather than taking  away the incentive to push all sorts of things on your friends, family (children at school), the profits created by the War on Drugs give every person willing to take a shortcut to wealth the perfect incentive to get people hooked on the junk.

And then there is the ugliest side of the War on Drugs: further erosion of basic liberties, and the mainstreaming of authoritarian behavior in the culture to the points where many citizens watching the video above will think the actions of the police above are perfectly justified, or at worst, are a tolerable casualty  — tolerable collateral damage for a good cause.

Above is video from a February raid in Missouri.  The Balko site captions:

SWAT team breaks into home, fires seven rounds at family’s pit bull and corgi (?!) as a seven-year-old looks on. They found a “small amount” of marijuana, enough for a misdemeanor charge. The parents were then charged with child endangerment.

And advocates:

I’d urge you to watch it, and to send it to the drug warriors in your life. This is the blunt-end result of all the war imagery and militaristic rhetoric politicians have been spewing for the last 30 years—cops dressed like soldiers, barreling through the front door middle of the night, slaughtering the family pets, filling the house with bullets in the presence of children, then having the audacity to charge the parents with endangering their own kid. There are 100-150 of these raids every day in America, the vast, vast majority like this one, to serve a warrant for a consensual crime. But they did prevent Jonathan Whitworth from smoking the pot they found in his possession. So I guess this mission was a success.

Here’s some very sober thinking on the Drug War at a recent Libertarian presidential candidate debate. Sober thinking on a crucial subject while Congress is busy-bodying itself on steroid scandals.

The poll, run by Terry Moddonna’s opinion research firm, found that a majority worried about increased underage drinking, although the figures were evenly split on allowing PA residents the same freedom as countless neighboring states where citizens don’t have to make extra stops to buy beer, and can buy the exact quantity desired vs. being forced to buy an entire case or an overpriced 6-pack at a bar.

The Post Gazette reports, “The group is opposed to beer being sold in supermarkets and convenience stores for both public safety and business reasons, (MBDAP President) Mr. (David) Shipula said.” Really? This wouldn’t have anything to do with the monopoly on beer sales in PA held by those Mr. Shipula represents? Really, is not Mr. Shipula representing the monopoly held by his membership’s Beer Cartel?

We agree with State Sen. Sean Logan, who dismissed the relevance of the poll suggesting “This sounds like somebody protecting their own turf.” No doubt, that’s what government power does so effectively for organizations that are able to buy such power from politicians — it goes hand in hand when your wealth, freedom, and liberties are consolidated and handed over to government.

As for public safety and underage drinking, we’d point out that neighboring states are not facing numbers any worse than those in PA despite their allowing consumers more freedom. We think it is high time to break the PA beer cartel’s strangle hold on beer sales.

Note: We also question the underage drinking age laws in the United States and PA. This prohibition has created its own problem where those under age 21 are still able to access alcohol in most cases, while learning to drink with other juveniles vs. with under the comparatively more responsible supervision among parents and close family friends, much like in Germany or other European countries where reckless underage drinking is far less common. When beer is not accessible, youth turn to other alternatives such as hard liquor or pharmaceutical and harder illegal drugs.

This is another example of failed prohibition in the United States, where common sense is abdicated to government force. Libertarian minded candidates will fight against this lunacy of those who think government can solve problems it instead makes much worse. Visit Choose Responsibility for more information on the benefits of changing the drinking laws in the U.S. for those under 21.

Here’s a clip from the comedian Drew Carey produced by reason.tv on Medical Marijuana and Marijuana illegality in general. Notice the people interviewed about their use for medicinal purposes. These people are not the animals Drug War zealots want you to believe.

Apart from being prohibition — which only creates a whole host of additional problems without actually stopping drug use — marijuana prohibition is flat out immoral for people who choose to use it for their own reasons.

Libertarians are against prohibitions. Bring drug use out of the gutter where those who are addicted to more dangerous substances can be helped vs. alienated and driven underground.

Libertarians are often assailed as being pro drugs for our belief that the Drug War is a waste of resources and a violation of basic rights of citizens. Above is a clip from a Canadian TV interview of ex-cop Barry Cooper, once considered one of the best police officers in Texas, discussing his reasons for being against the Drug War. In particular, pay attention to his points about citizen’s duties to fight against unjust laws.

After you’ve watched the video, we’d like to add a few observations to Barry’s comments.

In response to the reporters assertion, “Isn’t it up to a democratically elected government to write the laws and changed the laws?”, we’d point out that democracy is not what is held high in the United States’ founding or its constitution, never mind that practically every politician talks about democracy as if it is the ultimate objective. Certainly Barry’s response was a valid one, but we also should remember that the United States was founded with the intent of respecting individual rights and liberty, and certainly not to enshrine with power the whims of the masses who might use government force to impose their will on a minority — which is allowed in democracy.

Such assertions, that democracy is most important are fatuous in the context of so many fleeing popular tyranny abroad in the founding of this great nation. As well, the Founding Fathers often wrote about the importance of protecting the liberties and freedoms of the minority from the tyranny of the masses, and spoke harshly of democracy (a word not mentioned in the Constitution or Declaration, and a concept often derided in their writings!). After all, the most numerous minority in the United States is clearly the individual.

We’d also remind readers, if we needed a Constitutional amendment for the failed alcohol prohibition of the late 1920s, why has none been required for Drug prohibition? Unfortunately, the answer is that the Constitution simply ain’t respected like it once was. Today it is a supple document, and as such, politicians have steadily convinced far too many voters that giving up personal rights and freedom is safer than retaining them.

Which leads us to a second point: The journalist follows up with an attempted “gotcha” question by asking, “what if somebody thinks other laws aren’t particularly suitable for their lifestyle” such as those against speeding, robbery, drunk driving, etc. — should they simply be ignored too? Bary’s answer is solid (you gotta love Rosa Parks!), but to it we’d ask readers to consider the concept of consensual behavior and its relationship to crime. When someone steals, they are taking someone else’s property without their consent. When someone murders, they lack the consent of the victim. When someone drunk drives, they impose their threat to others on the highway who do not consent to driving alongside a ticking time bomb.

Therein lies a critical concept of libertarian beliefs — a belief in fundamental liberty and freedom. Someone smoking pot in the privacy of his home or backyard may not be your or my cup of tea (or beer or mixed drink, for that matter), but so long as said pot smoker is not driving under the influence (which is a valid law) or engaged in some other criminal behavior, why treat him as a criminal?

Most Americans are comfortable with the timeless saying, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight with my life to protect your right to say it.” Implied in the statement is a defense of the constitution and of personal liberty and essential freedom. The same ought to be said of someone smoking a joint.

• Listen Now/ Download

Even if you hate drugs for whatever reasons you have — family or otherwise — give this argument for legalization a listen. Legalization might actually solve some of the worst problems used to justify the War on Drugs That’s a war that has consumed tens of billions of dollars and many lives, yet our usage and abuse levels are worse than nations that treat use, abuse and addiction as a medical problem vs. a crime. Meanwhile, we incaerate thousands of people who are sucked into the black market that is a rehash of 1920s failed prohibition.

If you’re interested on what libertarians think can be done on a local level, why not contact us?