Last month I made the point that merely going after drug dealers is largely a waste of effort. If we really want to reduce drug use, we should go after users. Of course, we donít have enough jail space to go after all drug users, but we could possibly go after those addicted to the really hard drugs like crack and heroin.

Carl S. Milsted, Jr.

But should we?

The standard libertarian answer is a screaming ìNO!î Drug use is a personal choice, albeit often a bad choice. Only when a drug user is committing an actual crime such as theft or assault should the state intervene.

The drug warriors have two counter arguments. First, they claim that drug use is not a choice, that the users of illegal drugs are addicted. Second, they point to other harms by drug abusers such as laziness, irresponsible behavior and family neglect.

So, who is right?

The answer is: both sides overstate their respective cases.

The simplistic libertarian view is easily invalidated by observing humans. People do not always act rationally. They make spur-of-the-moment choices they later regret, especially when pushed by others. Car salesman, ad agencies, con artists and politicians are all skilled at bypassing human rationality in order to encourage bad choices. And drugs themselves can subvert rational choice, by weakening the will, causing withdrawal symptoms and/or weakening the reasoning process. The drug warriors can rightfully argue that a bad choice spurred by peer pressure can lead to a spiral of increasing drug use leading to abuse.

But the drug warriors are also very simplistic in their reasoning. Not all drug users become abusers. Only a small fraction of alcohol users are alcoholics. The fraction may be higher for cocaine and opiates, but it is much lower than the drug warriors would claim. The natives of South America have been chewing coca leaves for generations without falling into the moral degeneracy associated with crack houses. Coca-Cola had cocaine in it until 1903. Opiates were commonly used in this country as over-the-counter pain relievers. Many of our Founding Fathers were on opium for their arthritis aches. Almost to the modern era, babies have had their teething pains eased by opium tinctures (paregoric). Even today, medical opium is commonly administered (morphine) without causing permanent addiction.

So, if we grant that both positions are extreme and unrealistic, what policies should the government follow? How do we take into account that the choice to do drugs is somewhere between free will and chemical determinism?

For starters, we can deal with an easy case: marijuana. Marijuana is less addictive than many of our currently legal drugs. This country is full of former pot heads. The choice to smoke marijuana is a reversible choice. Legalize it; treat it like alcohol.

At the other extreme, concentrated forms of cocaine and opium are quite addictive. The choice to partake in such drugs is difficult to reverse. A moral case could be made for making such drugs illegal. And if we narrowed our drug-control efforts to such drugs, the task would be far easier. By legalizing the softer drugs, we could free up resources to go after the hard drugs, including forcible rehab for users.

But this might not be the optimal solution. What of the case of the hard-drug user who rationally thinks through the consequences of such actions and still opts to partake? Should such be persecuted?

One way to segregate such users from victims hooked by drug pushers would be to have limited zones where such drugs are legal. To enter such a zone a user would have to obtain a license, jumping through multiple hoops for the privilege. This could separate determined choices from spur-of-the-moment bad decisions.

I realize that few drug warriors care about such moral niceties as the rights of those who rationally choose to be hard drug users, but there are practical implications to my proposal that should be of interest to drug warriors. If such drugs are made available to determined users at a reasonable price, street drug pushers are put out of business. With such a system it would become harder to get hooked in the first place!

In between these two extreme cases we have a large gray area to wrestle with. What should be done about dilute forms of cocaine and opiates? Should we legalize coca leaf tea? Original (pre-1903) formula Coca Cola? Smokeable opium? Would such legalization reduce crack and heroin use by making the dilute forms available as a substitute? Or would such availability act as a wider gateway to heavier drug use?

I donít claim to have a definitive answer, but I do think that such questions are worth asking. And we do have data to look at to give us some clues. Look at liquor abuse during Prohibition compared to today.

Look at cocaine abuse in South America compared to the U.S. Look at opium abuse in Afghanistan compared to the U.S. and Western Europe.

By answering such questions we can maximize free choice. But what about the victims of drug abusers? What of the second objection of the drug warriors? [To be continued.]

ï
Carl S. Milsted Jr., former chairman of the Libertarian Party of Buncombe County, may be contacted at cmilsted-at-holisticpolitics.org.