R: Retreat from the Drug War

In recent years, drug use and abuse in the United States has become one of the most commented upon issues. From the opioid crisis to marijuana legalization, it seems that every pundit and official running for office has a comment on what our drug policy ought to be. For now, the position of the federal government is that of continuing the historic “war on drugs” begun by President Nixon almost 50 years ago. This week, we will come together to consider whether or not we should maintain this policy, abolish it entirely, or perhaps replace it with something else.

On the one hand, the Drug War has been detrimental to the urban poor and black and Latino communities. Our current policies treat drug use as a criminal justice issue, with the US throwing billions of dollars annually into harsh enforcement and policing of drug users, doesn’t seem to be bringing us any closer to a “victory.” In fact, the number of drug-related deaths each year is greater than ever before. Additionally, support for the legalization of recreational drugs such as marijuana and psychedelics is at an all-time high. With these factors in mind, perhaps it is time to retreat from the drug war, to allow for the decriminalization of many hard drugs and the legalization of recreational drugs. Perhaps it is time to treat substance abuse as a medical disease to be cured rather than as a crime to be incarcerated for.

Yet, there is something that seems fundamentally wrong in calling for a “retreat” from the drug war. As conservatives, we understand that our nation was founded upon certain universal principles and that in a conflict between the will of the people and what is morally just, the moral option must be the one we take. For our government not to take a stand against drug use, against something which is physically, mentally, emotionally, and morally corrupting for our society, would seem to signal the sad dissipation of the last shred of moral inertia left to us by the character of our founding. To give up the drug war would mean the tacit admission that libertarianism is the future (and perhaps already the present). Yet, this would not be the kind of libertarianism of the ideal pluralistic society where the government gets out of the way for state and church influence to reform the populace. No, this would be the kind of moral anarchy wherein government at the Federal level retires from offering any sort of judgment on the actions of its citizens. In such a case, we may as well have no government at all.

To be fair, that criticism may be too harsh. It could be the case that neither the affirmative nor the negative side will have the right of it. The drug war is a complex issue, with many policy decisions worth arguing over as well as a philosophical underpinning that merits debate. In debating both elements of this issue, we must ask ourselves several questions. Why should or shouldn’t an individual be prevented from using drugs if it will only harm himself? To what extent does our government taking a stance on drug abuse matter? Is it possible to find a medium, which is sustainable and logical, where some recreational drugs are legal but more damaging drugs are not? Is drug use in its entirety a slippery slope which ought rather be avoided entirely?