Interview with Libertarian Presidential Nominee Harry Browne
drcnet.org
Last week DRCNet reported on the gradations of drug policy reform
present in the various camps of the Green Party
(http://www.drcnet.org/wol/143.html#nader). This week we report
on another third party, the Libertarians, who held their annual
convention last weekend in Anaheim, California.
The national Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org) gave Harry
Browne a first ballot nod to be the party's presidential
candidate. Browne, 67, defeated four other contenders for the
nomination and is the first repeat Libertarian presidential
candidate. He ran in 1996 and gained nearly half a million votes
nationwide.
Browne is an investment advisor and best-selling author. He
first gained fame in the 1970s for books such as How You Can
Profit from the Coming Devaluation, How I Found Freedom in an
Unfree World, and You Can Profit from a Monetary Crisis, which
reached #1 on the New York Times bestseller list.
More recently, Browne has turned his pen to more political-
philosophical themes, publishing Why Government Doesn't Work and
The Great Libertarian Offer.
The Browne campaign web site may be accessed at
<http://www.harrybrowne2000.org>. Joining Browne on the
Libertarian ticket is vice-presidential nominee Art Olivier,
former mayor of Bellewood, California. Olivier defeated well-
known California medical marijuana activist Steve Kubby, among
others, to gain the nomination.
The Libertarian Party has been a consistent and insistent voice
for ending drug prohibition, which it views as just another
example of intrusive government interference in the lives and
activities of American citizens.
The Week Online interviewed Harry Browne on July 6:
WOL: Not all of our readers are familiar with the Libertarian
Party. Could you explain for our readers your party's position
on drug policy?
Browne: Our overall approach is simply that we want you to be
free to live your life as you want to live it and not as Al Gore
or George Bush think is best for you. We want you to be able to
raise your children by your values and not the values of some
bureaucrat. As far as the war on drugs is concerned, it is an
absolute tragedy, the worst scourge visited on America since its
founding. Not only is it unconstitutional, with the huge federal
role in law enforcement, it has put a million people in prison
who have never harmed anyone. It has led to massive law
enforcement corruption. It allows rapists and murderers to go
free so we can make room to put pot smokers in prison. Then
there's asset forfeiture, search and seizure, and on and on. The
drug war is the justification for almost every invasion of civil
liberties today. It must end.
WOL: Drugs are one of several issues addressed by the
Libertarian Party platform. How big a role will the drug issue
play in your campaign?
Browne: It will be a major part of my campaign. What we hope to
do is get one or three or five percent of the vote this time. To
get those votes, we have to emphasize areas where people have a
compelling reason to vote for us and no temptation to vote for
Democrats or Republicans. The drug war is one of those areas.
People who have been hurt by the drug war, whether they've been
arrested or had to endure urban violence, for example, get no
satisfaction from either the Democrats or the Republicans. I
have been talking about it since beginning my campaign. I've
made it a point of stressing that my first day in office I will
grant unconditional pardons to every nonviolent drug offender in
federal prison today.
WOL: So, you believe that the drug issue is a vote-getter for
you?
Browne: Yes, it's the area where the line between us and the
other parties is widest. We have other issues, of course, such
as repealing the gun laws and the income tax, but on all of those
issues people can say that the major parties are trying to move
in that direction. The drug issue will be a primary area of
concern precisely because, unlike some of these other issues, the
distinction between us and the other parties is so sharply drawn.
WOL: Even if we grant that much of the evil we associate with
the drug trade is a result of prohibition, there still remains
the harm that some users do to themselves and others. How would
you deal with these problems?
Browne: If someone does harm to someone else, he should be
prosecuted. It doesn't matter if he was taking drugs or drinking
alcohol or eating Twinkies. If a drug user starts beating his
wife, he should be prosecuted. If he does harm to his family,
say, by spending the rent money on drugs, that's unfortunate, but
this happens all the time. It is the height of absurdity to
think the government can solve these problems. We cannot mandate
an end to personal tragedies. There is no simple political
solution to these problems; in fact, the harm comes from thinking
there is a political way. We've tried that, and it fails. Then
comes the inevitable escalation, the urge to try something else,
until the next thing you know, they're monitoring e-mail, they're
looking at people's bank accounts, they're using informers to
"solve" the problem. Something should be done, say people, but
the government can't fix these problems, and this escalation is
inevitable any time you try to prosecute victimless crimes.
WOL: What would happen to government-funded drug treatment and
prevention programs under a Libertarian administration?
Browne: What, "We're from the government and we're here to cure
your drug problem"? That won't work any better than the Post
Office. The idea that drug rehabilitation or prevention programs
are good seems to lead to the idea that a government program is
good, when in fact they are giant boondoggles. No, people in the
private sector will do everything they can, just as is the case
with Alcoholics Anonymous. Can you imagine if AA were a
government program?
WOL: Can you describe how a legal drug regime might work? What
it would look like?
Browne: The federal government would have no involvement
whatsoever. The states would be free to set up their own
systems. I imagine we would see a wide variety of policies; in
some states everything would be illegal, at the other end of the
spectrum at least one state would have complete legalization.
This would be a natural transition period in which people would
look at what works best. I believe that states with the most
stringent laws would have the highest crime rates and the worst
drug problems. The problem of differences among the states would
equalize over time if we got rid of the federal laws.
WOL: Clearly, a global drug producing and distributing industry
already exists. What would happen to the international "drug
lords" and their organizations?
Browne: I believe that the cartels will lose their markets
because big pharmaceutical companies will undercut them. Then
the cartels will have three options: First, they can find a
market where drugs are still illegal. Second, they can go into
another illegal business, such as prostitution. Third, they
could just whither away. They'll have to find an honest way to
make a living. The important thing, however, is that they will
no longer be a threat to us, and that's all we can worry about.
We can't run the whole world.
WOL: The Green Party platform also contains strong drug reform
planks. Why should someone interested in drug reform vote for
you instead of Ralph Nader?
Browne: Our attitude is part of a consistent philosophical
approach that is far more reliable than any temporary position
the Greens might take. We've been against the drug war from the
beginning. That opposition is consistent with our overall
philosophy. We are consistently on the side of getting the
government out of your life; you don't have to worry that we will
compromise down the road.
WOL: Roughly half of the electorate doesn't participate in the
electoral process. What are you doing to reach those potential
voters?
Browne: Starting in two weeks, we will begin an ad campaign
running nationally on cable. If we can raise the money, we'll
run ads on the national commercial networks, especially after the
conventions when the cheap rates kick in. We would love to
advertise on MTV and ESPN and other places where non-voters
congregate, but it may not be cost effective. In the final
analysis, there is just no cheap and simple way to reach people.
We wish there were a drug reform channel, for instance, but there
isn't. You have to weigh target groups on two measures: how
compelling are their reasons to vote for us, and how easily we
can reach them. You don't know how many times I've had someone
say, "I'm 28 years old and this is the first time I've thought
about voting." This is music to our ears, but we've got to have
money to be able to reach these people. And we have more money
now than in 1996.
WOL: In the last presidential elections, you gained about half a
million votes. What has changed that makes you think you will
better that count this time?
Browne: I can point to three things. First, the party is much
bigger, stronger and better financed. And as we continue to
grow, that growth starts to accelerate. We're beginning to
attract more middle-class people with money and not just the
disaffected. So, we have more people, and they're better off on
average than before. Second, the party has matured in terms of
presenting its message. Before, everyone wanted to talk
ideological purity or assert their moral rights or whatever.
Now, most Libertarians recognize that we have to talk to people
in terms of how much better their lives can be. We will talk
about safer cities, not other peoples' rights. We've become
better campaigners. And third, every year more and more people
become disaffected with the two parties and the growth in
government. This year we are seeing lots of press and public
interest in third parties in general. I'm in the national polls,
which is a first for the party. Nader, Buchanan, and I are all
below 5%, and I'm at the low end of the three, but we hope to
start climbing in the polls after the major party conventions.
We might get 5%, 15% would be a real longshot for us, but
anything over a million votes would put us in a whole different
class. We would have to be taken seriously.
WOL: Al Gore has admitted smoking pot and George Bush has all
but admitted to being familiar with cocaine. Should a
candidate's history of past drug use have any bearing on his
suitability for office?
Browne: It depends on what they're doing now. Bush is signing
bills with prison terms for people doing precisely what he did.
If I were allowed into the debates, the first question I would
ask Bush is, "Do you think you'd be a better person today if you
had spent 10 years in prison for your youthful indiscretion?"
The same for Gore. But a history of drug use is not relevant,
unless you're trying to put someone in prison for doing the same
thing. A continuing drug problem could be a concern if it seems
compulsive, but I'd like to see a government with so little power
that we could tolerate someone with a drug problem because
there's nothing he can do to hurt us. |
