Carl S. Milsted, Jr.

I must admit the drug warriors have a point. Who wants to live by a crack house ó even it is a legal crack house? Who wants to marry a crack addict? More importantly, who thinks itís OK for their spouse to become a crack addict after the marriage contract has been signed?

All that said, responsible hard-drug use exists. Some people who partake in hard drugs are good neighbors, pay their debts, have successful careers and happy families. In fact, some are far more successful than the norm. Just read the sports pages: superstar athletes testing positive for drugs that the drug warriors claim automatically turn you into a loser.

Going after all recreational drug users because many are criminals or deadbeats is an example of profiling. Itís not as bad as racial profiling, since drug use is a choice whereas race is not, but itís still profiling.
Not convinced? You say you donít care about the rights of drug users? Very well, I have a much more important point to make.

The term ìVictimless Crimeî has operative significance! Even if you donít care about the natural rights of drug users, even if you think some injustice is warranted for the overall good of society, there are very good reasons to take victimless-crime laws off the books.

When a victimless crime is committed, there is no victim to call the police. If a drug dealer sells to a willing buyer, there is no one hurt by the transaction, no one to cry foul. When the purchaser partakes in a responsible manner, the same applies: There is no one to call the police. The existence of victimless-crime laws on the books results in at least one of the following:

1. The law is flouted by many. Fear of law enforcement diminishes. Lawbreaking becomes a normal occurrence, thus losing its stigma.

2. Legislators try to restore fear of law enforcement by imposing draconian penalties on the small fraction who are convicted. Love of law diminishes as people see its unfairness in action.

3. Law enforcement resorts to surveillance, paid testimony and/or entrapment in order to improve the conviction rate. The Bill of Rights gets trashed. A police state is created.

The Drug War has resulted in all three! This is why I am so passionate to end it, why I have devoted three columns in a row to the subject. I have no desire to partake in hard drugs for non-medical reasons. Caffeine, chocolate, and wine are quite sufficient. And I think anyone foolish to even try concentrated cocaine or opiates.

The right to use hard drugs is not the issue. Liberty and the rule of law are. At home, the War on Drugs has resulted in gang wars, loss of respect for the legal system, clogged courts, ridiculous sentencing guidelines, ruined lives, higher taxes, commonplace use of entrapment, and loss of privacy. Abroad, it has funded civil wars and terrorist organizations, and led our government to support regimes with bad records of human-rights violations ó all in a futile effort to enforce victimless-crime statutes.

But as the drug warriors rightfully point out, drug abuse is not a victimless crime. If a drug user is a bad neighbor, fails to pay debts, fails to take care of family, or leeches off the welfare system, we have victims to do the reporting. No police state necessary!

We could make drug abuse a crime and still have rule of law. Mandatory rehab could be enforced on those who have proven that they cannot handle their high. This applies not only to hard drugs, but even to drugs now legal, such as alcohol.

We could save tax money, end prison overcrowding, defund world terrorist organizations, restore the Bill of Rights, and do a better job of reducing drug abuse than we do today.

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