We uphold the inalienable right of adult citizens, in a free society, to choose which drugs, if any, they will imbibe. Recognizing that the government has no moral authority to dictate to free citizens the substances they may, or may not use, we also recognize the inherent harms done, lives destroyed, and taxpayer dollars wasted on the colossally expensive failure of the “War on Drugs”, as well as the growth of cartels, the fentanyl crisis, the injustice of asset forfeiture, the rise in armed raids, and the deaths of innocents that have ensued by targeting the wrong house.

Although the choice to use potentially lethal drugs is a self-destructive one, we also acknowledge that harsh criminal penalties of our country’s strict drug laws have resulted in more harm than good, with nearly half of the prison population there on drug related charges.

We hold that rights respecting citizens are competent and responsible enough to choose for themselves what they put into their bodies and are aware of the potential consequences of those choices. Those who are not competent and responsible cannot be held liable by the government for the destruction of their own lives – the laws of nature work well enough against them – they are liable only for the damage they do to another. translates into the breakup of the powerful gangs and cartels who currently profit from the illicit drug trade; As many of the cartels control whole towns south of the border, and many of the gangs terrorize whole neighborhoods in the United States, the elimination of their primary source of income will significantly reduce their influence, and the crimes they commit; it will save the American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars per year; it will end the persecution (and prosecution) of those whose only “crime” is the purchase, ownership, or consumption of a currently banned substance; and it will thereby free up law enforcement assets to concentrate full-time on the apprehension of violent criminals, jihadists, and any others that initiate either force or fraud against innocent victims.

Above all, we hold that terminating the failed legal war on drugs, enables a vastly more powerful and effective war on drugs. Not only will the legalization open opportunities to grow our economy, it will also provide the opportunity for individuals to generate personal wealth by removing current barriers to gainful employment. Currently, 224k Americans are sent to prison annually for a drug related charge that will hinder them from achieving meaningful employment and have long lasting negative impacts on their personal lives. We believe removing these barriers will inherently enhance the lives of those individuals, promote a sense of pride, productivity, and foster an overall sense of wellbeing in their personal lives.

Criminal Justice
We define a criminal justice system as the practical means by which individual rights are defined and protected by a proper government. The goal of a proper criminal justice system is in its name: justice. We maintain that justice can only be achieved by the subordination of force to reason. This process of promoting reason in retaliatory force and punishment is called Due Process.

Since we maintain that the initiation of direct (Physical), indirect (fraud) force, as well as parental neglect of a child (acknowledging that children are wholly dependent on their parents to maintain their lives and health), are the only ways in which rights can be violated, we hold that those are the only actions that can be properly outlawed in a free society. This precludes many activities that are illegal today; sexual activity between consenting adults, gambling, and the sale and use of drugs, do not constitute the initiation of direct or indirect force against another and so cannot be outlawed by a rights respecting society. The fact that one citizen finds another citizen’s behavior repugnant is a call for individual, maybe even social, but not legal censure.

If someone is judged guilty of violating the rights of others through due process they should be punished accordingly.

We hold that a criminal justice system that does not seek to make the victim whole, when possible, through restitution, is not achieving its stated goal. In the case of property theft or destruction, or in the case of physical assault of individuals that leaves the victim with onerous medical bills or grave disabilities, this translates into compelling the guilty party to actively work to pay his debt to the individuals harmed. The violent offenders may need to be separated from society and held in prison while actively paying restitution to his victims. In all cases, the goal of a proper criminal justice system is restitution and restoration of the victim, while maintaining the individual rights of the accused through due process.

We conclude that the absence of restitution disconnects the criminal from his victim and contributes to the cycle of recidivism so prevalent in our system today.
We hold that there is one crime that falls outside of our capacity to restore the victim: Murder.

Since no price can be put upon the hopes, dreams and potential of a human life untimely taken, there can be no means of making the victim of murder whole. It seems that under these circumstances the requirements for the achievement of justice can only be met by taking the life of the murderer. We, therefore, fully support the death penalty for those found guilty by due process, of the crime of murder.

We fully understand that there are certain individuals who chafe at the idea of the state having such power. We further understand that the appeals process has revealed some men who were found guilty to be innocent. We note that it is the innovations of science (made possible by a free society) that are usually the causes of these reversals, and understand that the more science enters the courtroom, the surer future verdicts will be. We also note that in a rights respecting government, the convicted murderer is afforded what he denied his victim: the right to his own life as represented by the trial and appeals process. We therefore find no rational conflict between the existence of the death penalty and a rights respecting government.