I don't think that the legalization of drugs is impossible, politically or practically. But I do think that it's a major, if not the major, stumbling block to mass acceptance of the Libertarian Party. Most importantly, I don't think our focus would be consistent - which is to say, different and better than the hypocrites (Republicans) and socialists (Democrats) - if we were to avulse that part of the platform. Better, say I, that we be content with lower political offices and slow growth than to try to rocket up a ladder on the rungs of compromised issues.
I had lunch with a fairly prominent author (and Libertarian) this summer, and we discussed exactly that: how, if possible, we might make various issues more palatable while not straying from the freedom mandate.
One way is to focus on the Constitution: while the prohibition of drugs is not consistent with individual freedoms, a more glaring problem with the drug policy is that many of the laws combatting it are federal, while in the Constitution the majority of powers are clearly and incontrovertibly delegated to states.
Perhaps...instead of the explicit, overnight legalization of drugs (etc.) that many envision a Libertarian political leader undertaking...both Constitutional grounds and a socially-assuaging element would be found in the holding of a state-by-state (or even county-by-county) vote to that effect. There, we agreed, might be the long-sought 'middle ground.'
LPS5 |
