Crime, Drugs and the State

There is a tendency among Libertarians to blame our growing crime problem on the “something for nothing” philosophy of the welfare state, i.e., belief by criminals that they have a right to the properties of others because they need it, and that criminals are nothing more than the consumers of the welfare state who have eliminated the bureaucrats as middlemen by going directly to the producers (read victims).

The fallacy underlying this analysis is the assumption that the criminals in our society have come to some sort of moral conclusion about their behavior. In considering the problem, it is apparent to me that the villain is indeed the government, but the cause is not the moral conclusions of criminals but rather the government’s suppression of narcotic sale and use.

Most people experienced in the area of crime would probably agree that from 60 to 80% of the robberies, burglaries, muggings, shopliftings and other crimes aimed at obtaining property are committed by narcotics addicts.

To get a better picture of the problem consider the following: 1) a heroin habit will cost five to seven hundred dollars a week and few people can afford such a habit by working at honest employment; 2) to earn five hundred dollars a week through criminal acts a person would probably have to steal twenty-five hundred dollars worth of goods in addition to any cash obtained; 3) the size of the addict population is constantly increasing (in New York City it is estimated that there are now 150,000 to 200,000 addicts) and virtually all addicts are full time criminals.

When we realize that, under present conditions, the addict is consumed by one obsession—obtaining the next fix—it is quite evident that law and order not only will not stop the rise in crime but will, in fact, be the major cause of the rise in crime. A fix costs fifteen cents to produce. Government suppression of narcotic use and sale has resulted in a coercive monopoly run by the elements of organized crime. The only factor limiting the price charged by this monopoly is the outside limit of income obtained by the average addict through criminal activity.

If heroin were sold openly on the free market the cost of maintaining a habit would be on the order of the cost of cigarettes to a heavy smoker, and there are very few persons driven to a life of crime by a cigarette habit. Once the addict knows that he can supply his habit without any difficulty or great expense he can function as a relatively useful individual capable of holding down a job and earning his way. In addition, the addict no longer has an incentive to increase the addict population because he no longer needs to find customers for pushers in order to get some cheap supplies of his own as a reward.

As a result of the continuing increase in crime, the criminal courts have become so crowded that they no longer seek justice but are instead only concerned with disposing of cases. Cases frequently drag out for over a year and the deterrent effect of swift punishment has been lost. As a matter of fact, one can safely say that not only does crime pay, but there is virtually no enterprise that pays as well with such a low risk of failure. In New York City, for example, in 95% of reported burglaries (only a portion of the actual burglaries committed) there is no suspect even brought into court.

This is not to say that the situation is inevitably hopeless. The crisis is purely a government created crisis. Not only has government given organized crime a prosperous monopoly, but it has increased its size and its own power to destroy civil liberties—and all with the howling support of the people. Judges frequently look the other way as police perjury becomes an accepted and favored method in obtaining convictions. For fear of constitutional restraints on police procedure, the police have taken to straight-out lying about how they siezed evidence or obtained confessions.

Off the bench and in private the judges will usually admit that most testimony from narcotics officers is untrustworthy, but once they start speaking for the public record, the police are transformed into poor maligned public servants who deserve public support and sympathy. To suggest to the law and order crowd that there is widespread police perjury is to invite a capophony of verbal abuse.

The legalization of heroin would result in an almost overnight elimination of one of the greatest social problems. Not only would we eliminate the crime crisis, we could fire a lot of cops, judges and other assorted government hangers-on as well as break the back of organized crime’s financial base.

Many people oppose the legalization of drugs on the non sequitor ground that legalization will not solve the drug problem. Legalization of heroin is not supposed to solve the drug problem; it is supposed to solve the crime problem. Solutions to the drug problem lie with the medical profession, not the law enforcement profession.

Libertarians should make it clear: If you support an increase in crime, then support law and order; if you wish to drastically reduce the crime problem, then support the order of the market place.