"Drugs are bad!"

"Drugs are evil!"

"Drugs are a scourge that must be stopped!"

"We must protect our youth at all costs from drugs!"

These mantras have been recited endlessly throughout the drug war. Even before Richard Nixon declared war on drugs, it has been the policy of the American government and many others to paint drugs as the source of so many evils. It has helped justify decades of a failed policy that has ruined countless lives, wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, and usurped the liberties granted by the constitution. By any measure the drug war has failed. It hasn't stopped drug use and it hasn't helped drug addicts. Yet every time the issue comes up the policymakers in Congress, law enforcement, and the DEA offer the same solution. They just need more money to combat the problem. But is that the only solution? Is there a better way?

As it turns out, there is. In 2001 the government of Portugal took a bold new approach to combating drugs. It decriminalized the use and possession of illicit drugs. This includes hard drugs like cocain, heroin, marijuana, and LSD. This means that people can no longer be put in jail just for using drugs or having up to a 10-day supplies. They can only be jailed for selling and distributing drugs. This effectively redirects law enforcement from seeking out users towards seeking out the suppliers, which are often the violent gangs and drug cartels. It is a complete reversal of the hardline stance the DEA has taken over the years. What they refuse to admit, however, is that this approach works.

Five years after the new laws were enacted, the number of deaths from drug overdoses dropped from 400 to 290 annually. The number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles dropped from 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006. This is all according to a study done by the Cato Institute. It effectively blows apart the argument made by anti-drug crusaders that claim deciminalization or legalization would increase the amount of drug users and drug-related health problems. Instead, Portugal has found a much more humane approach by treating users and addicts as victims of a health problem. Instead of throwing them in jail, those who break the law are brought before what is known as a "Dissuasion Commission" that consists of three people (a lawyer, a doctor, and a social service worker). These people have the option of recommending treatment, fining the user, or not giving them any sanction at all. Essentially, if a person wants to get treatment they can without fear of being thrown in jail. Or if they want to keep messing their lives up, they can do that as well. It's their body and it's their choice.

Overall, the law succeeded. It helped reduce the amount of drug-related incidents and offered help to those who were struggling with their addiction. Even Walter Kemp, a spokesperson for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, admits that decriminalizatoin in Portugal "appears to be working." It also disproved another fear by anti-drug zealots. Portugal did not become a drug mecca. It is still a functioning country with a functioning society. It just isn't throwing people in jail for ingesting substances some people call 'evil.'

The effectiveness of this policy have been covered by many credible sources including Scientific America, the Economist, and Time Magazine.

5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Laws Show Progress

Portugal's Drug Policy: Did Decriminalization Work?

Portugal's Drug Policy: Treating not Jailing

Yet has anybody in Congress or the DEA come forth to acknowledge this? Of course not. To them admitting that Portugal's policy worked would mean admitting that their policy isn't working. Nobody in any government agency will ever say that what they're doing isn't working. If that was the case they would lose their precious funding. The only time they will admit that their efforts aren't working is when they need more funding. All to often the government is happy to accommodate them because they earn bonus points with their voters by acting as though they're taking a stand against drugs. The reality, however, is that they're causing a great deal of harm by furthering a policy that turns non-violent drug offenders into criminals and robs them of their civil liberties.

It is government arrogance at it's best. Someone tries a policy that works better than theirs and they refuse to even acknowledge it. They would rather keep doing the wrong thing because it's so much easier. It shows a complete lack of humility and responsibility not just on the part of politicians, but on those who vow to uphold the law.

The fact remains. People have been using drugs for medical and recreational reasons since the beginning of civilization. It's not going to stop anytime soon and anybody who tries to stop it is going to lose. People use drugs because they do exactly what they want them to do. They bring pleasure, euphoria, and fun. There are serious risks involved in using drugs, but it should not be up to the government to decide whether or not an individual should take that risk. People are responsible for their own bodies. If they want to mess them up, that's their decision. It should be up to their family, their community, and their neighbors to support them and not the government. Portugal offers a clear alternative that not only works, but it champions the tenants of freedom that every American values. It is up to the leaders in Washington to swallow their pride and humble themselves before the light of freedom to do what is right and not just what is politically viable.

In the 1920s, religious and political ideologues were convinced that alcohol was the cause of everything wicked in society and that banning it's sale and distribution would make for a better society. They were so convinced they muscled through a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Distilleries were closed, bars and saloons went out of business, and entire communities were changed. But while the idea may have seemed sound, none of the people behind the movement could have foreseen the unintended consequences. Their cause, as noble as it may have sounded, did more harm then good. They banned something they considered immoral, but it didn't go away. Instead, something worse came about.

Throughout the 20s, crime soared as continued demand for alcohol created a new black market. Gangsters like Al Capone came to power, creating networks of illegal businesses that were not governed by free markets or rule of law. Force was the only way to carry out business. It lead to bloody battles between rival gangs and authorities that resulted in the deaths of many. But even more damage was done as a result of poorly made and dangerously formulated products like Moonshine. The cost of enforcing this ban on alcohol was immense and even when major crime figures were apprehended, new figures always took their place and the trade continued.

The 1920s prohibition on alcohol failed. In the span of a decade another constitutional amendment made alcohol legal again. But the era of  prohibition offers an important lesson to modern social activists who seek to ban certain vices. Banning something doesn't make it go away. And banning something often leads to unintended consequences that can only make the problem worse. Yet this is lost on people. Even when they know what they do won't stop something, they do it anyway just because it makes them feel good. And that level of conceit and selfishness is reprehensible on all levels.

While the battle against alcohol is long over, other battles continue. One is the ever popular War on Drugs. Up until the 1920s and 30s, there were no drug laws because it was thought to be unconstitutional to dictate what people could and could not consume (and it still is). But that didn't stop Nixon from flat out banning substances like marijuana and cocaine. And the result of his policies were the same as the policies on prohibition. Black markets have thrived and crime has surged with prisons overflowing with non-violent drug offenders. And like Moonshine, new drugs like Crystal Meth and Crack emerge as potent new synthetics that are far more harmful than anything naturally occurring. But it doesn't stop people from selling them because in the world of black markets, there are no rules or standards.

Another battle is abortion. Some radical pro-lifers seek a constitutional amendment defining personhood as beginning at conception. This would in effect, make all abortion illegal. But would it make abortion go away? No, it would only lead to the deaths of countless women. When abortion is legal it can be regulated and scrutinized for safety so that the risks are low. But where it is illegal, like in much of the developing world, women still seek them and often resort to the black market to get them. These are called 'back alley abortions' and they have no standards and regulations guiding them. According to the World Health Organization, around 68,000 women die every year because of unsafe abortions. Is such a price in human life worth it?

Another battle that emerged around the time of prohibition is prostitution. Up until the 1920s, prostitution was legal throughout most of the United States. But the same idealogues who banned alcohol sought to ban prostitution as well. But once again, banning it didn't make it go away. Instead, it sent it to the black market where the ugly forces of pimps and human traffickers control the trade. Like the drug war there is no order and there are no standards. Criminals will abduct children and take advantage of runaway women to force them into prostitution. And there's nothing they can do about it because if they go to the police, they get thrown in jail. Then there are the women choose prostitution of their free will (yes it does happen). Should they be thrown in jail too even though they're not hurting anybody?

Then there are the other smaller battles like banning pornography, violent video games, and profanity. Idealogues think that by removing these from society people will be better off, but banning them will only create more black markets and more illegal trades that will clog courts and put non-violent people in jail. Some states like Texas and Alabama have laws banning the sale of erotic toys. But people are still able to get them through the internet so it doesn't go away and it risks putting the people that sell them in jail. How is that justice?

These social ideologues are usually not driven by anything rational. They are usually people seeking political power through scapegoating certain aspects of society or religious leaders who believe they have a god given right to take away the freedoms of others and impose their standards on society. They don't care that doing so only makes things worse. They only care about doing something that makes them feel good about themselves. Because at the end of the day that's all these battles do. They make the idealists feel good about themselves while the rest of society suffers.

But in a truly free society, people have the freedom to live their lives as they see fit so long as they do not harm other people. That means they have a right to take drugs if they want or eat junk food if they want. That means they have a right to engage in prostitution so long as it is not coerced. That means they have a right to watch whatever violent or erotic media they want so long as they aren't harming people. This is what freedom truly is. You don't have to like these things or participate in them. But you don't have a right to tell other people they can't. That is the essance of a free society.

Religion has always been a base for morality. Many will object to something they consider immoral on religious terms. Some of the things religious people may object to include pornography, abortion, illicit drugs, alcohol, pre-marital sex, and homosexuality. These things are not like other morals such as war, killing, and theft. Many cultures, religious or not, consider those immoral already. But religion takes it a step further by finding something they don't like and using it as a rallying cry to get more converts, generate solidarity, and gain influence. There's nothing practical about wanting to abolish abortion, drugs, etc. It's purely symbolic. Even though banning it makes the problem worse (as it did with alcohol prohibition) they still rally behind it. And as passionate as religous people are about these morals, they have no right to impose them in a free society.

Take for instance the war on pornography and sex. Many in the Christian Right seek to ban it along with some femanists. They claim it leads men to see women as objects and will make them prone to rape and sexual violence. But this claim is not backed up by evidence. According to the Department of Justice, the rape rate since the 1970s has declined significantly (see chart here). Even though the prevalance and availability of pornography has gone up since the 1990s, it has no correlation with rape rates. Yet despite this evidence, groups like the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council try to push their agenda in banning it. And that just isn't reasonable in a free society. You can't just ban something because you don't like it.

So why do they do it? It goes back to the idea of a symbolic gesture in the name of morality. There's nothing practical about banning porn or drugs or anything else of that nature. It won't make it go away. It'll just push it underground, clog the courts, and clog prisons (as the war on drugs has done). These are things that have always been a part of society going all the way back to ancient times. No society in the history of civilization has managed to eradicate these things no matter how strict or authortative. But despite this they keep trying for that symbolic gesture that generates solidarity and rallies people to a cause.

Recently, the issue of gay marriage has been a big rallying cry. Religous figures claim that to allow gays to get married would degrade marriage and insult their faith. But practically speaking, it wouldn't do either. On a purely bureaucratic level it would allow gay couples to establish themselves as legitmate partners in the eyes of the state and entile them to the same benefits. That in no way affects other marriages. It just adds something different. It's a change and many, religious or otherwise, do not embrace change easily. But like with other issues, in a free society just not liking it isn't enough to ban it.

At the end of the day, symbolic gestures in the name of religion are only as effective as people think they are. It requires people to ignore facts and not think about the practical aspects of what they're doing. And in the long run it could cause more harm than good, but that doesn't bother them in the slightest because they actually believe what they're doing is right in the name of their diety. This has prevailed a great deal over the years, but in a free society it has no place. People are free to talk about these issues and rant about them. People like Ann Coulter and the Westboro Baptist Church (the god hates fags crowd) have a right to say whatever they want no matter how hateful or absurd it may be. But when they start trying to legislate their beliefs, that crosses a line. It's okay to not like something, but just because you believe your god says it's wrong doesn't give you the right to impose it. That's what freedom truly is.