On April 1st, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed a bill into law that ended her state’s more than three-year-long experiment with legalization of so-called hard drugs. The choice of day notwithstanding, her decision to sign the bill that reintroduced criminal penalties for the use of those drugs was no joke. It was a badly needed end to a reckless experiment in childish libertarianism with humans as guinea pigs.
Fox News referred to Governor Kotek’s decision as a “U-turn on a short-lived liberal policy,” which is a fair description insofar as the policy move is concerned. However, the big losers here are the libertarians who wanted legalization in the first place. As far as they are concerned, the Oregon reversal raises an existential question for their very ideology.
As we will see in a moment, libertarians who celebrated the Beaver State’s legalization when it was implemented are now strikingly silent. To the extent that they do offer comments, they only reinforce the impression that the Oregon reversal has the potential to become the death knell of American libertarianism.
From a conservative viewpoint, the reversal of the drug legalization in Oregon is a gloat-worthy ‘see I told you so’ moment. Anyone who has studied human nature through the lenses of both reality and political theory knows very well that drug legalization is a venom in the arteries of civilized society. Drugs that consume people do so by rewriting their moral priorities: when a person is addicted, the addiction supersedes all other obligations and commitments. Gradually wearing down relationships, a drug addiction deprives a father of his ability to parent, a coworker of his ability to make contributions of value, a citizen of his ability to serve his community, and a man of his reliability as a protector of his loved ones and his country.
As a conservative, I can easily see how an ordered, civilized society needs all its members to function. At the same time, I can also see how the quality and progress of human society are possible only when humans are free to the greatest extent possible.
Most importantly, though, I can see the steady interaction between the demands of a civilized society and the freedom of its individuals. Unlike libertarians, I recognize that society requires some limitations to human freedoms; at the same time, unlike socialists, I recognize that those limitations only affect a residual part of our individual freedom. That residual comprises actions that would harm our ability to function as members of society. Drug addiction definitely belongs here.
With that said, it is important not to overstate the drug policy reversal in Oregon. In terms of criminal policy, the legislature’s and the governor’s change of heart was not all that revolutionary. The newly introduced penalties are at a misdemeanor level, and there is a concerted effort within the new law to combine criminal repercussions for drug use with pathways out of addiction.
The Oregon reversal is significant from the viewpoint of political philosophy. By putting her signature on the law, Governor Kotek has dealt a serious blow to the long-running libertarian campaign in America for drug legalization.
Her decision should be recognized nationally, and ideally beyond America’s borders. Europe is still moving in the wrong direction on this issue, which, on the face of it, can seem contradictory. After all, libertarianism is almost entirely absent in European politics.
One reason for this is that the removal of punishments for using hard drugs, or what legalization proponents call ‘psychedelics,’ overlaps the far ends of the political spectrum. In Europe, legalization has been embraced by the radical Left. For those who have made drug legalization the sole cause of their political career, the difference between the Left and the Right does not matter much. Therefore, it is unsurprising to read news reports like this one from the Washington Post:
The legislation was brought by Germany’s ruling coalition, made up of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s center-left Social Democrats (SPD), the Greens and the Free Democrats.
The last of these three parties was previously known as a center-right party, but as is the case in much of German politics, they have gradually moved to the left over the years. Consequently, their push for drug legalization is of the ‘leftist’ brand; in a moment, we will get to know the ‘libertarian’ brand a little bit more—and see how the Oregon reversal has the potential to put the final nail in the coffin of American libertarianism.
Oregon is not the place where libertarianism goes to die simply because the state reversed its legalization. The issue is deeper and more philosophical than that, which means that libertarians cannot ignore it and hope to win the next legalization battle solely based on the vices and virtues of legalization. While there were politicians in Oregon who were swayed to end legalization by practical matters, including a surge in overdoses, this was not primarily a debate over to what extent marijuana is harmful and a ‘gateway drug’ to other drugs.
The Oregon reversal was a philosophical turnaround, decisive enough that it should raise existential questions in the minds of all libertarians. Conservatives need to consider it, not just as a chance to gloat, but primarily because American conservatives traditionally have had a complicated relationship with libertarianism. On the one hand, they appreciate libertarian support for economic freedom, with politicians like Senator Rand Paul exemplifying how one can be in good standing among both conservatives and libertarians. On the other hand, conservatives with a stronger leaning toward social and philosophical issues than toward economic policy do not appreciate the libertarian insistence on drug legalization.
On the latter issue, Senator Paul—a medical doctor by profession—again represents a virtuous example of libertarianism. He has been working for criminal justice reform that would to some degree shift focus from strictly penalizing drug abuse to more of a combined approach, including encouraging addicts to end their abuse. However, he has never taken the hard-line libertarian position that ‘psychedelic’ drugs must be legalized, period.
The senator’s prudence on issues of drugs and criminal justice reform is respectable, especially if viewed as the most ‘libertarian’ position that can be practically and philosophically accepted. Broadly speaking, his idea is that those who become drug addicts should still be punished, but they should also be helped back to a productive, addiction-free life.
This view is paradigmatically different from that of American libertarians, and which was instrumental when Oregon decided to legalize drugs in 2020. Here, the philosophical idea is that individual freedom has no boundaries, and should therefore entitle every one of us to abdicate from all social responsibilities by means of drug addiction.
Viewed from this angle, the difference between libertarianism and conservatism becomes an unbridgeable chasm. Right here, where the realities of Oregon’s legalization meet the philosophical principles of libertarianism, conservatism prevails as the sensible political philosophy.
It would have been better for Oregon if the socially conservative viewpoint had prevailed back in 2020, but it is at least comforting to know that reality can penetrate ideological dogma. Here is a representative voice from an influential former legalization advocate:
“It’s the compromise path, but also the best policy that we can come up with to make sure that we are continuing to keep communities safe and save lives,” state [Senator] Kate Lieber, a Portland Democrat, told the Associated Press.
This kind of clarity is welcome, if belated. It stands in stark contrast to the dogmatic libertarian approach, which interestingly exhibits itself in the reaction from this enclave to the Oregon reversal.
This reaction is one of conspicuous silence. As of April 3rd, the Reason Foundation—a libertarian outfit whose entire existence revolves around the legalization of narcotics—has not uttered a single comment on the recriminalization. Notably, when Oregon legalized drugs, they were quick to celebrate the decision.
Much like the Reason Foundation, the Institute for Humane Studies has a long history of activism centered around drug legalization. The former executive director of IHS, Chad Thevenot, is a lifelong drug propagandist. In recent years, the IHS has tried to downplay its drug advocacy, but it has never reversed course from all its years advocating drug legalization. As for the Oregon recriminalization, the IHS makes no comment.
Maybe Reason and the IHS are wise to keep quiet about the Oregon reversal. After all, it might not be that easy to comment on it from a libertarian perspective without resorting to comedy. After all, that is what happened to the Cato Institute, a long-standing libertarian think tank.
Over the years, Cato has offered plenty of drug legalization arguments, and they have often had an unintentionally comical undertone. Among the most humorous examples is a piece from 2018 by their vice president of research, economist Jeffrey Miron. Back then, he made an anti-libertarian case that drug legalization helps government by creating a new tax base.
And here I was thinking that libertarians wanted to shrink government and reduce the burden of taxes that we hard-working citizens have to pay.
What Miron shows us is that when libertarians have to choose between economic freedom and the freedom for an individual to capitulate from his social responsibilities through drug addiction, the latter always wins. It does not really help that other Cato scholars take another stab at empirically motivating legalization. Among the curious efforts, we find this supposedly empirical contribution from Christopher Coyne and Abigail Hall in 2017:
Given the insights from economics and the available data, we find that the domestic War on Drugs has contributed to an increase in drug overdoses and fostered and sustained the creation of powerful drug cartels.
If this effort was really an honest attempt at empirical research, someone at Cato would have stepped up to the plate by now and offered a counter-study on the failed legalization experiment in Oregon. To date, such a study is notably absent from Cato’s website. We may have to wait in vain for them to offer a mea culpa on drug legalization.
The closest Cato gets to any kind of recognition that Oregon has actually recriminalized drugs is a lamentation from senior fellow Jeffrey Singer, who claims that Oregon’s legalization decision in 2020 somehow was not ‘real’ legalization. Voters in Oregon, he explains, “were mistaken” in believing “that decriminalization alone would reduce overdose deaths.”
Reading Singer’s piece is like listening to a communist who claims that communism has never really been tried. Sure, the Soviet Union imposed unspeakable misery on its people for seven long decades, Maoist China had its run, and Cuba has been trying since 1959, but there are communists out there who will say that those experiments were not communist enough.
In effect, courtesy of Singer’s comment, the Cato Institute has now let us know that a 43% increase in overdoses was not enough of an experiment to qualify as a bona fide legalization of ‘psychedelics.’ Trying to escape the not-real-communism trap, Singer goes on to claim that decriminalizing drugs “is not the same thing as” legalizing them, because “people who use drugs” lack the protection that consumer safety laws give them. Drug users “can never be sure of the dose or purity” of the illegal drugs they purchase.
So let me see if I understand this libertarian argument for drug legalization.
- Individuals deserve unlimited freedom.
- Individuals can handle individual freedom so well that narcotic drugs should be legalized.
- But to handle unlimited freedom, individuals need the government to dictate the right dosage and purity, as they use their individual freedom to destroy their lives.
I would like to thank Cato Institute Senior Fellow Jeffrey Singer for having applied the right dosage and purity of analysis to once and for all clarify the libertarian argument for drug legalization. Grow government through more taxes, expand government through more consumer safety regulations, enhance government in every which way you desire—just don’t try to get between the addicted individual and his drug of choice. Because doing that would be un-libertarian.
Oregon: Where Libertarianism Goes To Die
Photo: RenoBeranger from Pixabay
On April 1st, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed a bill into law that ended her state’s more than three-year-long experiment with legalization of so-called hard drugs. The choice of day notwithstanding, her decision to sign the bill that reintroduced criminal penalties for the use of those drugs was no joke. It was a badly needed end to a reckless experiment in childish libertarianism with humans as guinea pigs.
Fox News referred to Governor Kotek’s decision as a “U-turn on a short-lived liberal policy,” which is a fair description insofar as the policy move is concerned. However, the big losers here are the libertarians who wanted legalization in the first place. As far as they are concerned, the Oregon reversal raises an existential question for their very ideology.
As we will see in a moment, libertarians who celebrated the Beaver State’s legalization when it was implemented are now strikingly silent. To the extent that they do offer comments, they only reinforce the impression that the Oregon reversal has the potential to become the death knell of American libertarianism.
From a conservative viewpoint, the reversal of the drug legalization in Oregon is a gloat-worthy ‘see I told you so’ moment. Anyone who has studied human nature through the lenses of both reality and political theory knows very well that drug legalization is a venom in the arteries of civilized society. Drugs that consume people do so by rewriting their moral priorities: when a person is addicted, the addiction supersedes all other obligations and commitments. Gradually wearing down relationships, a drug addiction deprives a father of his ability to parent, a coworker of his ability to make contributions of value, a citizen of his ability to serve his community, and a man of his reliability as a protector of his loved ones and his country.
As a conservative, I can easily see how an ordered, civilized society needs all its members to function. At the same time, I can also see how the quality and progress of human society are possible only when humans are free to the greatest extent possible.
Most importantly, though, I can see the steady interaction between the demands of a civilized society and the freedom of its individuals. Unlike libertarians, I recognize that society requires some limitations to human freedoms; at the same time, unlike socialists, I recognize that those limitations only affect a residual part of our individual freedom. That residual comprises actions that would harm our ability to function as members of society. Drug addiction definitely belongs here.
With that said, it is important not to overstate the drug policy reversal in Oregon. In terms of criminal policy, the legislature’s and the governor’s change of heart was not all that revolutionary. The newly introduced penalties are at a misdemeanor level, and there is a concerted effort within the new law to combine criminal repercussions for drug use with pathways out of addiction.
The Oregon reversal is significant from the viewpoint of political philosophy. By putting her signature on the law, Governor Kotek has dealt a serious blow to the long-running libertarian campaign in America for drug legalization.
Her decision should be recognized nationally, and ideally beyond America’s borders. Europe is still moving in the wrong direction on this issue, which, on the face of it, can seem contradictory. After all, libertarianism is almost entirely absent in European politics.
One reason for this is that the removal of punishments for using hard drugs, or what legalization proponents call ‘psychedelics,’ overlaps the far ends of the political spectrum. In Europe, legalization has been embraced by the radical Left. For those who have made drug legalization the sole cause of their political career, the difference between the Left and the Right does not matter much. Therefore, it is unsurprising to read news reports like this one from the Washington Post:
The last of these three parties was previously known as a center-right party, but as is the case in much of German politics, they have gradually moved to the left over the years. Consequently, their push for drug legalization is of the ‘leftist’ brand; in a moment, we will get to know the ‘libertarian’ brand a little bit more—and see how the Oregon reversal has the potential to put the final nail in the coffin of American libertarianism.
Oregon is not the place where libertarianism goes to die simply because the state reversed its legalization. The issue is deeper and more philosophical than that, which means that libertarians cannot ignore it and hope to win the next legalization battle solely based on the vices and virtues of legalization. While there were politicians in Oregon who were swayed to end legalization by practical matters, including a surge in overdoses, this was not primarily a debate over to what extent marijuana is harmful and a ‘gateway drug’ to other drugs.
The Oregon reversal was a philosophical turnaround, decisive enough that it should raise existential questions in the minds of all libertarians. Conservatives need to consider it, not just as a chance to gloat, but primarily because American conservatives traditionally have had a complicated relationship with libertarianism. On the one hand, they appreciate libertarian support for economic freedom, with politicians like Senator Rand Paul exemplifying how one can be in good standing among both conservatives and libertarians. On the other hand, conservatives with a stronger leaning toward social and philosophical issues than toward economic policy do not appreciate the libertarian insistence on drug legalization.
On the latter issue, Senator Paul—a medical doctor by profession—again represents a virtuous example of libertarianism. He has been working for criminal justice reform that would to some degree shift focus from strictly penalizing drug abuse to more of a combined approach, including encouraging addicts to end their abuse. However, he has never taken the hard-line libertarian position that ‘psychedelic’ drugs must be legalized, period.
The senator’s prudence on issues of drugs and criminal justice reform is respectable, especially if viewed as the most ‘libertarian’ position that can be practically and philosophically accepted. Broadly speaking, his idea is that those who become drug addicts should still be punished, but they should also be helped back to a productive, addiction-free life.
This view is paradigmatically different from that of American libertarians, and which was instrumental when Oregon decided to legalize drugs in 2020. Here, the philosophical idea is that individual freedom has no boundaries, and should therefore entitle every one of us to abdicate from all social responsibilities by means of drug addiction.
Viewed from this angle, the difference between libertarianism and conservatism becomes an unbridgeable chasm. Right here, where the realities of Oregon’s legalization meet the philosophical principles of libertarianism, conservatism prevails as the sensible political philosophy.
It would have been better for Oregon if the socially conservative viewpoint had prevailed back in 2020, but it is at least comforting to know that reality can penetrate ideological dogma. Here is a representative voice from an influential former legalization advocate:
This kind of clarity is welcome, if belated. It stands in stark contrast to the dogmatic libertarian approach, which interestingly exhibits itself in the reaction from this enclave to the Oregon reversal.
This reaction is one of conspicuous silence. As of April 3rd, the Reason Foundation—a libertarian outfit whose entire existence revolves around the legalization of narcotics—has not uttered a single comment on the recriminalization. Notably, when Oregon legalized drugs, they were quick to celebrate the decision.
Much like the Reason Foundation, the Institute for Humane Studies has a long history of activism centered around drug legalization. The former executive director of IHS, Chad Thevenot, is a lifelong drug propagandist. In recent years, the IHS has tried to downplay its drug advocacy, but it has never reversed course from all its years advocating drug legalization. As for the Oregon recriminalization, the IHS makes no comment.
Maybe Reason and the IHS are wise to keep quiet about the Oregon reversal. After all, it might not be that easy to comment on it from a libertarian perspective without resorting to comedy. After all, that is what happened to the Cato Institute, a long-standing libertarian think tank.
Over the years, Cato has offered plenty of drug legalization arguments, and they have often had an unintentionally comical undertone. Among the most humorous examples is a piece from 2018 by their vice president of research, economist Jeffrey Miron. Back then, he made an anti-libertarian case that drug legalization helps government by creating a new tax base.
And here I was thinking that libertarians wanted to shrink government and reduce the burden of taxes that we hard-working citizens have to pay.
What Miron shows us is that when libertarians have to choose between economic freedom and the freedom for an individual to capitulate from his social responsibilities through drug addiction, the latter always wins. It does not really help that other Cato scholars take another stab at empirically motivating legalization. Among the curious efforts, we find this supposedly empirical contribution from Christopher Coyne and Abigail Hall in 2017:
If this effort was really an honest attempt at empirical research, someone at Cato would have stepped up to the plate by now and offered a counter-study on the failed legalization experiment in Oregon. To date, such a study is notably absent from Cato’s website. We may have to wait in vain for them to offer a mea culpa on drug legalization.
The closest Cato gets to any kind of recognition that Oregon has actually recriminalized drugs is a lamentation from senior fellow Jeffrey Singer, who claims that Oregon’s legalization decision in 2020 somehow was not ‘real’ legalization. Voters in Oregon, he explains, “were mistaken” in believing “that decriminalization alone would reduce overdose deaths.”
Reading Singer’s piece is like listening to a communist who claims that communism has never really been tried. Sure, the Soviet Union imposed unspeakable misery on its people for seven long decades, Maoist China had its run, and Cuba has been trying since 1959, but there are communists out there who will say that those experiments were not communist enough.
In effect, courtesy of Singer’s comment, the Cato Institute has now let us know that a 43% increase in overdoses was not enough of an experiment to qualify as a bona fide legalization of ‘psychedelics.’ Trying to escape the not-real-communism trap, Singer goes on to claim that decriminalizing drugs “is not the same thing as” legalizing them, because “people who use drugs” lack the protection that consumer safety laws give them. Drug users “can never be sure of the dose or purity” of the illegal drugs they purchase.
So let me see if I understand this libertarian argument for drug legalization.
I would like to thank Cato Institute Senior Fellow Jeffrey Singer for having applied the right dosage and purity of analysis to once and for all clarify the libertarian argument for drug legalization. Grow government through more taxes, expand government through more consumer safety regulations, enhance government in every which way you desire—just don’t try to get between the addicted individual and his drug of choice. Because doing that would be un-libertarian.
READ NEXT
Milei Disrupts the Cosy Consensus at the G20
The Albanian Conservative Institute: An Intellectual Beacon for Albania’s Center-Right
Brussels Opens Path to ‘Fiscal Fascism’