Everytime I see a conservative disagree with legalizing drugs, one of the most commonly used rationales is that we will end up with more social problems. This is true, but not because of the drugs themselves but because of what our society has become. I think a lot of conservatives underestimate the libertarian/minarchist recognition that there will be an increase in stupidity and criminality, such as driving while intoxicated. This is a given, but it doesn't directly have anything to do with drug use.

The minarchist (minimal government) position is that society has become weak and refuses to accept responsibility, and this is in no small part manifest in the way that our laws protect criminals from their own violence toward others. Excessive force laws and other restrictions on force put law-abiding citizens in a terrible legal position. If they use a harsh degree of force against a violent drug user, some prosecutor may come along after the fact and say that it was not a justified level of force. Such laws are a good example of where the true corruption of society exists.

Conservatives generally find it distasteful to argue that a person who is being burgled, mugged or just generally set upon by a drug user should be legally allowed to simply pull out a handgun and shoot the drug user dead without warning. Liberals naturally find it to be quintessentially barbaric (which is a good deal of the appeal right there!), but let none of that deter the rational thinker here. As I have said before, most people are not psychotic--they can be trusted to use harsh degrees of force, including deadly force, when attacked. If you disagree, then vote to disarm your local police force because they too come from the public and will be no more mentally stable!

The public safety issue is at its heart an issue of conservatives ignorantly blaming drug use for a safety problem that bad public policy and law has created. In fact, the greatest argument, that drug users will break in and steal property to feed their habit is laughable on its face because under a drug legalization legal regime, most people could support their drug habit the way they support their alcohol habit. As has been pointed out by Jacob Sullum of Reason magazine, much of the cost in illegal drugs today is the "black market premium" which would not exist if drugs were legal for adults to possess and use in ways analogous to alcohol or tobacco products.

The one public safety issue that is not mentioned in conservative opposition to this, is the corruption of police forces from their original mission as peace officers. The War on Drugs has created a myriad number of problems ranging from easy asset forfeiture rules to a significant militarization of local and state police forces. Mere possession of and use of drugs does not itself constitute a public safety issue, anymore than the use of alcohol in one's home does. To summarize the problem, we have a category of crimes that entices police forces to play rambo in order to secure large, lucrative convicions and seizures. This is manpower that is not getting spent on taking down intoxicated drives, burglars, murderers, etc. These are the real public safety issues, and there is ultimately no difference that should legally matter between a criminal who is stone cold sober, drunk on alcohol or high as a kite on drugs.

As a minarchist, that is my beef with conservatives. They tend to have a two-year old's attention span toward issues that surround the War on Drugs such as the liberty-destroying effects of having heavily-armed, militarized police forces and a liberal's ability to blame inanimate objects for the moral failings and crimes of others. Don't blame the gun, don't blame the alcohol or drug. Blame the person who committed the crime. That is the libertarian/minarchist position.