Drug Policy and it’s ramifications for Individual Liberty.

One of the emerging hot-button issues of the 2016 Presidential race, is candidates stances on Drug policy; The War on Drugs Billions of dollars and 30+ years later, has taken America no closer to a drug free society at a tremendous cost. Every candidate in the 2016 Presidential race, seems to believe there is a problem but they each differ wildly in their methods for solving it. The debate revolves around for the most part the lives torn apart by drugs, and the lives of those torn apart by the criminal justice system. It weighs the interest of massive revenues and massive expenditures. Scientific journals shape the debate with their latest analysis of illegal drugs potential harms and medical uses. But what seems to be lost on many today is why they are illegal, and the issues at stake concerning laws criminalizing them.

Laws by their very design are expressions of societal norms intended to bar certain behaviors that either impedes upon the rights of another, or behavior that is disruptive to societies general functions. Rights exist to the individual to protect those norms and processes from impeding into an individuals life beyond what is reasonable.  With that in mind, to understand the issue we must ask ourselves what is the reason that certain substances are banned. The first reason often cited is, Is that, Drugs harm society. This is to an extent true, but not for reasons inherent to the nature of the substance. As a brief history of Latin America from the 70’s through the present day demonstrates; From The Medellin Cartel in Columbia, to The Zetas in Mexico, Drug violence is the greatest danger posed by the usage of Drugs.

But this doesn’t come from Drugs themselves but their criminality. By banning the substance, law does not prevent its usage or creation, but the possibility that legitimate business practices will fill the market need. The forcing of this into the Black Market, eliminates regulation, protection, and government force as the arbiter of disputes (Canales). Violence is inherent in a system that lacks any regulation or oversight. When billions of dollars are at stake interests must be protected, from production to transportation lines, the paths by which drugs reach the United States are racked with violence. The death toll in Mexico alone is estimated at between 60,000-100,000 in drug related violence between 2006-2013 (Canales).

Drugs Criminality also costs the U.S. billions of dollars between fighting the war on Drugs, and billions more to incarcerate offenders on the states dime for mere possession (Marijuana Policy Project). The sum cost of The War on Drugs, is vastly weighted by the costs of fighting the war on drugs rather than their inherent usage. The cost to society, without enforcement can be quantified in healthcare costs, and the damage drugs will cause within the family structure. The healthcare debate then would concern not ones usage of drugs, but one’s lack of insurance and the massive costs of healthcare.

The next claim to then asses is the damage done to families, an individuals life and the loss of productivity across the board. To that i would, respond that again a great measure of that cost stems from their criminality. In a society where nursing a chemical dependency is a crime, where does an addict turn for aid? Private organizations have done a great deal to help build support groups and allow an individual to better control their lives. But that does little for a person in the throws of chemical dependency. Treating that dependency as a crime alienates users within a society keeping them from being able to reach out for aid.

Once more, the criminality of drugs, has done little to stem their usage as seen by the continued growth of the drug market in recent years. A conservative estimate, places the U.S. Drug Market at a value of between 30-150billion dollars annually (Canales). As the former president of Columbia Cesar Gaviria described it, “The War on Drugs has failed. [We’ve seen].. no matter what you do, the drugs will get to the U.S. “(The Economist). The United States spends around 90% of our resources in the War on Drugs on enforcement and incarceration, and 10% on treatment. Where our drug policy, is failing were presented with an inverse picture in Portugal  who spends 90% of their resources on treatment and only 10% on enforcement (The Economist).

The Portuguese model represents a cohesion of law and societal expression through action. Instead of assuming drug usage is the failure to live up to societal norms and standards, viewing it as what it is, an escape from reality that one can become lost in. Chemical dependency is treated as a medical disorder requiring scientific rather than coercive means to break. In 2001, Portugal responding to 1% of their populations addiction to heroin in the 90’s passed a total decriminalization measure. This measure, decriminalized small amounts of  illicit drugs and shifted the focus to harm reduction measures (The Economist). This saw a 50% reduction in heroin usage in 10 years, a general decline of drug usage and addiction rates declining across the board (The Economist). If law is the expression of societal action and designed to prevent the interrupting of those processes, then treating drugs as a chemical dependency is proven a far more effective means of societal functionality.  While there is inherent damage done to individuals and family life by drugs, the decriminalization of drugs is the most effective policy means to mitigate the damage they can cause.

So if The banning of Drugs, does nothing to reduce their harm to society and in many ways exacerbates them, what is the justification for their continued prohibition? Drugs make people commit crimes.While drugs are often associated with crime, that association comes from the destitution of those isolated from society pushed to  a life of crime to sustain their habits and without recourse of treatment as an option. The issue when using that as a justification is that the activities associated typically with drugs are already crimes. Vagrancy, Theft, robbery, assault, muggings, shop lifting; etc. are all crimes in and of themselves. With or without criminality of drug usage, each of these activities would warrant a corrective response by society for violating the nesecarry functions, and rights of fellow citizens. A punishment i would consider justified. But Drug usage, is not a just reason for incarceration of U.S. citizens.

What the true justification of drug criminality is the mere imposition of the morality of the majority upon the minority. The stigmatization of those deemed different and dangerous by those who hold monopoly on the reigns of power. Individual liberty, and the respect that every citizen is to be secure in their persons and property; exists regardless of the opinions of the majority. Individuals in a free society have the right to do what they will with their own bodies. Until a compelling justification for their prohibition can be brought that warrants the trampling of the sanctity of the individuals own person, the policy is and will remain unjustified. If the American people believed that these drugs were harmful 100% of the time and had no legitimate usage how could a society in which drugs are prohibited spend between 30-150billion dollars annually? (Canales).

Our laws do not currently respond to our rights, nor to the will of the American people expressed through the market. The trampling of Individual liberty is only justified by the tyranny of the majority. The Drug War has taught us very important lessons about the American people. That we will assert our rights whether recognized and condoned by law enforcement, or not. The Free Market will find the means to serve demand, blind to the obstacles in the way. And finally, that government coercion, cannot, has not, and will not be accepted by The American people.

As always, I will close with a quote,”If you support the war on drugs, in it’s present form, then your only playing lip service to the defense of freedom, and you really dont grasp the concept of the sovereign individual human being.”-Neal Boortz

You’ll Hear from me soon,  Saorise

Works Cited:

Canales, Rodrigo. The Deadly Genius of Drug Cartels. Ted Talks. Youtube, 4 November 2013. Web. 22 September 2016.

“Decriminalization Brochure.”Marijuana Policy Project. Marijuana Policy Project, 2016. Web. 23 September 2016.

“Drugs; War or Store?”. The Economist. Youtube, 11 June 2015. Web. 21 September 2016.

Disclosure of biases…

In the interest of fairness, I have always believed in examining your source as well as their message in order to make the most informed decision possible. Just as on my previous blog, i feel its only fair to disclose the lens by which i will be examining individual liberty issues.

I am the product of staunch conservative parents in the deep south. I grew up in a town that was the direct product of white flight in response to segregation, and as the result of good policy planning had an excellent school system. I was lucky enough in my education to find teachers of every perspective that challenged me to articulate my ideas and better understand my own reasoning. In that process, I discovered i could not justify my political stances with the reality I saw around me. I realized that Conservative social policy is merely the tyranny of the majority imposed upon the minority, and that allowing that tyranny to be imposed has justified everything from denial of marriage equality to Jim Crow laws. That understanding lead me to supporting individual liberty for all and the only political party that backs that stance.

In college i was further challenged to defend my beliefs learning to justify my positions across the board on logical, historical, economic, and social grounds. Through conversations with Professors, friends and classmates i was able to study policy through a holistic lens and from a variety of perspectives, and grow from the experience. I am a fraternity man, i support Greek organizations; and do not see it as a structure of privilege. I am a consummate fan of the underdog and heroic civil disobedience, I tend to sympathize.

I am supporter of passionate ideas, and those willing to stand up for them to see them realized at any cost. I tend to like historical figures more based on their personality and values than their policies. I think moral legislation is reprehensible in any form regardless of who’s doing it. It is merely the will of the majority imposing its will on the minority. I reject morality as a legitimate factor on which people make legislation. Morality is a relative construct, ethics should dictate instead. I believe in free markets and as limited government intervention as is realistically possible.

I’m a Libertarian, more specifically a classical liberal. I seek a government that acts as an unbiased judge of societal conflicts ensuring basic liberty for all and intervening as little as possible in the least damaging way possible. I am a proud Gary Johnson supporter (shameless plug in acknowledgement of biases). I fundamentally reject the two party system and sympathize nominally with other third party movements. I’m pro-choice, I support equality under the law for all. I tend to take the side of the victim of police shootings, and i despise Donald Trump, and his toxic rhetoric.

Finally, I am always skeptical of government expansion and motivations. I love enlightenment philosophy and anti-colonialist thought. I see nationalism as illogical and whistle-blowers as heroes (#FreeSnowden). And I oppose unnecessary wars, and the idea of a military first spending policy. All that said, feel free to take that into account when evaluating my argument. An enlightened electorate, is the only one capable of defending individual liberty.

All that said, and my shameless plugs tossed out, I hope you find value to my blog and at the very least find it thought provoking. “Every person has the truth in his heart. No matter how complicated his circumstances, no matter how others look at him from the outside, and no matter how deep or shallow the truth dwells in his heart; once his heart is pierced, the truth will gush forth like a geyser. “-Ernesto Che Guevara

Saorise

A treatise on a reflexive political process

This is not my first blog, but it is with zeal that I commit to writing regularly (more so then my previous two month on six month off pattern.) That being said before I begin writing in earnest I thought I would lay out the purpose of this blog’s composition and explain the perspective which I will be writing from. The United States today, perhaps more so than any other point in recent history is in jeopardy. Our society is fundamentally divided along artificial lines crafted by one point of identification or another. There’s BlackLivesMatter, there’s Alllivesmatter, there’s Bluelivesmatter, and Nolivesmatter. There’s Trade-protectionist’s and Free-Trader’s, Globalists and Nationalists; pro-life and pro-choice all at points of contention. Top to bottom, people no longer see themselves as an American first and foremost.

Whether you see this as good, or bad; is telling and divisive, as is the answer to why it has occurred. There is no denying whatever you deign the cause to be that 2016 is an intersection of conflict and competing interests. What sets this election apart from others in recent memory is the desperation hanging in the air, a national dread to be heard in frantic talking heads on the major news networks, and the urgency of their pleas.For some the election of Hilary Rodham Clinton, is seen as a looming end of the world to be braced for, and fought against with everything one has. For just as many Americans, the election of Donald J. Trump, is an impeding disaster the likes of which and magnitude of cannot be known. These candidates and their supporters seem to be campaigning as if the very future is at stake; not so much for their candidate but against the other.

From where I’m sitting, their both right. Hilary and Donald each represent a real and credible threat to individual liberty for one group and distinction or another; only varying in magnitudes between these interests. They both will, and plan to undermine the very fabric of individual liberty. Uprooting the core by which the legitimacy of the ideas that formulate rights originate. In spite of massive unpopularity of both major party candidates, their supporters are working double-time to ensure the crowning of the lesser evil to avert the greater. Interestingly enough looking at voting patterns, they seem to line up with who’s loss of liberty will be averted by the election of the other. American’s have time and time again allowed and watched the slow erosion of our individual liberty to narrower and narrower interpretation with time. Each side in a real sense is fighting for their freedom, and in turn supporting the loss of another citizens.

Liberty lost to anyone undermines the legitimacy of everyone. The urgency in this election is justified, people are fighting for the very way they live their lives. It is my fundamental assertion with this blog, that greater individual liberty, both socially and fiscally is the key to a return to pragmatism of politics and operation of a better society. When the losers have much to lose, and the winners little to gain; as we have seen this cycle, things can get ugly. When your very rights are at stake, there is no guarantee that you will have the opportunity to make your case again. In that feeling comes a finality that to many has made this election of critical importance.

Yet in a world of protected liberty, the losers accept there role in government working with the winners to implement change with broad enough support to produce meaningful legislation to the betterment of the people. With protected liberty, one doesn’t have to worry about N.S.A. surveillance into their personal lives over political leanings. In a world where liberty is respected, All Lives Matter; and African Americans are treated fairly by the law and not gunned down at an alarming rate by law enforcement who “felt threatened”. In a world where liberty is respected, politics are not finality; and they are not so much an imposition into your lives as to require your constant attention to ensure your rights are protected.

This is a society I hope to see a return to in my lifetime. Individual liberty is the assurance that even if we stand alone, we still get to stand. It is the assurance that your religion and your conscious are yours to define. It recognizes that dissent does not make one an enemy and that only by working together can government serve the needs of the people best. Only through individual liberty can we assure a better political future. This is the perspective from which I will be writing. My opinions are my own.

In an effort to keep this specifically about individual liberty issues, I will not be making this about political partisan affairs, and will try to keep it on the issues exclusively. Thanks for reading, you’ll hear more from me soon.

In the Words of Thomas Paine, ” I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies this right makes himself a slave to present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.”

Saorise.