Larry Sharpe, smiling contentedly

Bwog Senior Staff Writer Gabrielle Kloppers was extremely excited to be able to attend the Columbia University Libertarians event, a discussion on the War on Drugs with Larry Sharpe, the Candidate for the 2016 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential Nomination.

In the current political climate, people seem to be scrambling left, right, and center to vote for anyone that isn’t one of the two main party candidates. In their quest for anyone but Shillary or Drumpf, people turned their eyes onto the Libertarian Party Candidate, Gary Johnson. Many of these people, however, were as clueless at this stage about what being Libertarian actually meant as Johnson is about Aleppo.

I had some understanding of basic libertarian tenets prior to this, but still was influenced by the old stereotype of the libertarian as a white man over sixty. But as Sharpe himself said, ‘I am neither of those things and I’ll make sure people understand that’. This reflects the changing face of a rising Libertarian party. For this reason, it is important for Columbia students to have more exposure to views that one day may become increasingly influential, especially as Sharpe presents the party as one with no victims and no punishments, dissimilar indeed to Trumpist thoughts.

This talk in particular was on the War on Drugs, a topic that is unfortunately highly relevant for many Columbia students.

How will it effect us, and what thoughts does Sharpe espouse on it as a representative of the Libertarian Party?

My enthusiasm for the talk abated slightly when I arrived on time at 6, only to find out the event was actually going to start at 6.30. Nevertheless, when Larry Sharpe complimented me on my velvet jacket my mood went up consistently. While we waited for the other attendees to show up, Sharpe addressed some burning questions an audience member had about women’s rights and the right to paid maternal leave. Sharpe answered in line with Libertarian party lines: namely, that if you left it up to businesses, they would put in maternal leave to attract better skilled workers. Whereas, if the government instated laws about it, they may put it in, but it wouldn’t encourage them to actually be proponents of women’s rights. Furthermore, putting laws in would mean that big businesses would be able to skirt these laws. However, the audience was left with questions on whether these changes in culture would actually occur quickly enough to benefit women across America.

Finally, the talk began. Sharpe began by discussing the war on drugs, which he believes directly led to worse outcomes for all Americans. He explained that incarcerating drug addicts didn’t lead to their rehabilitation; it just leads to their imprisonment and burden on the taxpayer. It also has the effects of encouraging gun and street violence, as well as directly leading to higher overdose rates. Furthermore, the war on drugs has directly led to racial discrimination and a lack of rights for the poor, who are increasingly stopped by the police under stop and frisk, or are negatively impacted by the system of civil forfeiture. Stopping the war on drugs would allow the government therefore to use its funds to rehabilitate drug addicts and control the quality of substances, which could ultimately lead to less negative affects from addiction. What was clear to me before this talk was that incarcerating drug addicts doesn’t stop people from abusing drugs, and in some cases can lead to them abusing more societally harmful drugs like methamphetamines or other synthesized drugs, because black market control makes getting quality drugs too difficult for those already addicted.

Most of the audience came away believing that legalization was an apt solution; however, the question remains on how this could be done within our current legal and political system, where long term benefits of the abolishment of the war on drugs are considered less important than short term societal benefits that ultimately get candidates elected. Furthermore, the voter base of America would not allow for candidates espousing such radical changes to be voted in. So although on paper what Sharpe discussed seemed perfect, the question remains on how you could ever bring this into an actuality. One example where this has happened is in Portugal, where addicts are allowed what is considered an amount of controlled substances appropriate for 7-10 days of use. This has caused significant decreases in the rate of not only incarceration, but also drug-related violence and overdoses. Despite this positive example, it does not serve to say that similar effects could be had in the USA.

Next was the War on Terror, which Sharpe and the Libertarian Party are vehemently against. Military intervention in the Middle East has not meant that potential terrorists are less enraged against America. In fact, Sharpe mentioned that it encouraged radicalism, and ultimately, doesn’t protect US citizens. What it does do, however, is restrict US citizen’s rights. Laws like the Patriot Act or “lists” like the No-Fly-List in Sharpe’s words make it seem that we are “okay with prosecuting thought crimes” in the name of fear. However, this fear, according to Sharpe, is largely unfounded. Deaths in America by ISIS agents have been extremely low, and is far less than the amount of people killed in accidents with swimming pools. Why are we so afraid? Sharpe, as a veteran himself, went on to mention the real victims of the war on terrorism: veterans. Between those killed or injured in the line of battle, or returning vets who have severe PTSD and an extremely high rate of suicide, around 20,000 to 30,000 US lives have been taken by the war on terror.

Although leaving conflict in the Middle East sounds like the ideal solution to many, there remains the question of whether it actually would have been worse if the US had never intervened. Another question is whether the low death rate from terrorist attacks in the US is perhaps caused by the restrictive laws of the US government. Most can agree, however, that these laws have gone extremely far, with US citizens detained for suspected terror. Where does the protection stop and the infringement on individual rights begin? Sharpe summed this up by saying that the American President does not swear to protect US citizens when he swears in. He swears to protect the constitution of the USA, which in turn is meant to protect these citizens.

Although Sharpe’s talk was extremely engaging and interesting and presented a point of view not often seen in America’s two-party system, there are nevertheless large gaps in the logic of how these ideal conditions could come about within that system. This is where most of the questions about the Libertarian Party come about. How could they ever be successful? As voting week approaches, it is important as Columbia students to weigh all the options we have, and look at alternatives to our normal ways of thinking. I certainly learned something.

up close and personal headshot via Wikimedia Commons