Local Libertarians offer policy solutions
in ‘Opportunity Now’ feature interviews
Libertarian Party leaders from Santa Clara County are being tapped this fall for a series of articles on Libertarian solutions to public policy challenges. Opportunity Now Silicon Valley is a nonpartisan educational nonprofit aimed at policymakers; their mission includes “exploring how free-market ideas could be applied to Silicon Valley government challenges.”
The publication featured LP SCC Vice Chair Mark Hinkle for this Oct. 6 article exploring local government policy regarding drug 'crimes'.
Local drug liberalization, through a Libertarian perspective
Mark Hinkle — former Libertarian Party Californian state chair and current Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association president — sat down with Opp Now to analyze drug legislation. Arguing for diminished local governance, Hinkle discusses the Libertarian perspective that all substances should be legalized, a policy stance recently rejected by Gov. Newsom. The first of an Opp Now series on Libertarian approaches to policy. An Opp Now exclusive.
Opportunity Now: How should laws and law enforcement be penalizing substance use in our local communities, if at all, according to the Libertarian ideology?
Mark Hinkle: Libertarians don’t want to defund the police, but we want them to focus on real crimes with real victims. Unfortunately, the war on drugs has failed miserably by targeting crimes without victims.
Now, assault, murder, rape, burglaries, and arson have real victims. By all means, if someone’s going around beating up people, raping people, murdering people, we want to get them off the streets. But if someone wants to smoke marijuana, do cocaine, etc., that’s none of the police’s business. It shouldn’t be against the law.
In sum, the damage done by the local, statewide, and federal war on drugs far exceeds the damage done from recreational drugs.
ON: Then, should local jails remove people arrested for drug-related crimes?
MH: By definition, crimes require victims. So, in cases of victimless crimes: Yes. Those arrested individuals should be released.
Removing people that have committed victimless crimes from our local prisons would free up roughly 50–60% of the prison population.
ON: What about local residents who don’t consume illegal substances or know anybody who does? Do restrictive local drug laws impact them in any way?
MH: The war on drugs is incredibly expensive for local taxpayers.
Our money funds myriad halfway houses, where recreational pot users are arrested and then taken to be rehabilitated. I was told at a local halfway house that they have a 95% fail rate, that 95% of people get kicked out and can’t complete the program. Why is our government spending all these funds for a 95% failure rate?
It’s ridiculous because the government is seemingly aiming to protect people by criminalizing drugs, but they’re not.
ON: Some claim that it’s unfeasible for the government to restrict access to addictive substances, as they permeate underground markets everywhere. In other words, people who want to purchase drugs can’t be stopped from purchasing them, including by a policy.
Is this argument plausible?
MH: It is. Prisoners frequently get offered illegal drugs in prison. If the government can’t keep them out of prisons, they certainly can’t keep them out of schools and off the streets.
Unsurprisingly, virtually every high school campus in the U.S. has easily (illegally) accessible recreational substances, as drug dealers are working at every school.
ON: Now, let’s talk all things Prop 64. This voter initiative legalized marijuana in California (for adults 21 years and older) a few years ago.
Has this adequately addressed what you would label over-restrictive drug legislation in the Golden State?
MH: One of the promises of Prop 64 was that it would eliminate the illegal pot market. However, this assurance failed big-time.
Post-Prop 64, the legal pot market is struggling in California because of high local taxes. Accordingly, street pot is still far cheaper, and many customers are opting for it instead.
A thriving illegal market (which is increasingly shoving out the legal vendors) poses safety concerns. If you go to a pot club in the area, will you get fentanyl-laced products? No, because it’s a legitimate business. This club must have high-quality products, or its business will be threatened. As for illegal sellers, who knows what’s in that product you purchased?
Ultimately, this points to a systemic issue, that whenever the government tries to solve a problem, they virtually almost always end up worsening the situation. The government should get out of the way of legitimate drug businesses and allow Prop 64 to deliver on its promise.
Read this article at Opportunity Now’s web site.
You can follow them on Twitter @svopportunity.