| 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. |
