Posted on 10/16/2003 10:48:07 AM PDT by noprob
The entire nation owes radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh a debt of gratitude, Libertarians say, because his ordeal has exposed every drug warrior in America as a rank hypocrite.
"One thing we don't hear from American politicians very often is silence," said Joe Seehusen, Libertarian Party executive director. "By refusing to criticize Rush Limbaugh, every drug warrior has just been exposed as a shameless, despicable hypocrite.
"And that's good news, because the next time they do speak up, there'll be no reason for anyone to listen."
The revelation that Limbaugh had become addicted to painkillers -- drugs he is accused of procuring illegally from his Palm Beach housekeeper -- has caused a media sensation ever since the megastar's shocking, on-air confession last week.
As the Limbaugh saga continues, here's an important question for Americans to ask, Libertarians say: Why are all the drug warriors suddenly so silent?
"Republican and Democratic politicians have written laws that have condemned more than 400,000 Americans to prison for committing the same 'crime' as Rush Limbaugh," Seehusen pointed out. "If this pill-popping pontificator deserves a get-out-of-jail-free card, these drug warriors had better explain why."
Given their longstanding support for the Drug War, it's fair to ask:
Why haven't President George Bush or his tough-on-crime attorney general, John Ashcroft, uttered a word criticizing Limbaugh's law-breaking?
Why aren't drug czar John P. Walters or his predecessor, Barry McCaffrey, lambasting Limbaugh as a menace to society and a threat to "our children?"
Why aren't federal DEA agents storming Limbaugh's $30 million Florida mansion in a frantic search for criminal evidence?
Why haven't federal, state, and local police agencies seized the celebrity's homes and luxury cars under asset-forfeiture laws?
Finally, why aren't bloviating blabbermouths like William Bennett publicly explaining how America would be better off if Limbaugh were prosecuted, locked in a steel cage and forced to abandon his wife, his friends, and his career?
The answer is obvious, Seehusen said: "America's drug warriors are shameless hypocrites who believe in one standard of justice for ordinary Americans and another for themselves, their families and their political allies.
"That alone should completely discredit them."
But there's an even more disturbing possibility, Seehusen said: that the people who are prosecuting the Drug War don't even believe in its central premise -- which is that public safety requires that drug users be jailed.
"The Bushes and Ashcrofts and McCaffreys of the world may believe, correctly, that individuals fighting a drug addiction deserve medical, not criminal treatment," he said. "That would explain why they're not demanding that Limbaugh be jailed.
"But if that's the case, these politicians have spent decades tearing apart American families for their own political gain. And that's an unforgivable crime."
Uh tattling? LOL!
I am speaking for myself, unlike jmc813, who can't speak for himself and is trying to drag(and hide behind others) into an arguement.
When you get to that place where everyone posts to FR without quoting, send me a postcard. :-)
JMO, you are going to remain a anymonous little schmuck if you continue to hide behind Jim.
Do you really want to go down the tpaine route on FR?
Snicker.
I'm not exactly sure what the "tpaine" route is, but if you're threatening that I'll be banned, I'm not worried. I'm a nice guy, generally keep my nose clean around here, and am a monthly donor. I'm really not worried about being banned for quoting people. Sorry.
Yeah, pesky ol' Constitution.
He did what, exactly? C'mon. Go on record, Mr. I don't need no steenkin' legal system.
Tell us right now, what did Rush do? He what? Bought pills? How many pills, from who, when? And these pills were for him and him alone? How much money did he spend on these drugs?
And you were there? Or did you read this somewhere, perhaps in a publication where a person was getting paid to "juice it up"?
The question is not "are drugs used less now than they were 30 years ago?" Rather, the question is whether drugs are used less than they would be, had we done nothing. If we have constrained drug activity at all - even if you only believe we have made buying illicit drugs slightly less convenient than going to your local Walgreens, then the war on drugs have reduced drug usage.
The question is how much; I believe that the war on drugs, imperfect as it is, has drastically reduced the available drug supply in this country, and kept many potential users from ruining their lives with drugs.
Simple economics will tell us that by increasing the price of something, we reduce the demand for it. Constraining supply through interdiction and enforcement has caused prices to increase, and increased prices have resulted in reduced demand.
Moreover, you could further argue that non-monetary costs: the risk of incarceration and forfeiture, for example, are an additional cost that rational people factor in when they decide to use illegal substances. Most people with something to lose (like most rational, responsible adults, with careers, families, and reputations to worry about) will avoid drugs, for that reason alone. For most people, the non-monetary costs of drug usage are far bigger factor than the actual cost of the drugs themselves.
Of course, the lure of drugs can be compelling, even for people with much to lose, like Rush - or for those with nothing to lose, like those in the inner city, who frequently succomb to the lure of getting high. The answer is not to make drugs more available - That would only exacerbate the problem. We need to both constrain supply through interdiction and enforcement, and reduce demand through the increased price that occurs as a natural function of reduced supply, and by imposing heavy non-monetary costs on use.
LOL! They(Libertarians on FR, IMO) do seem to have the "okay the enemy is nowwhere to be found" lets flex our "muscle" syndrome(but they have to smoke a joint first though).
Eventually, but if you are gonna fight the WOD straight up, she should have been jailed a couple of years earlier when she first got busted.
Today, the only "nice people" who get jailed are those that keep offending. The "other people" don't get that option.
SO9
I wish him success...
Just like prohibition cost society more than legal alcohol today?
Uh no the tpaine route, is hiding behind Jim, while you are rightly ridiculed for hiding behind someone(in this case the owner of the forum), instead of defending your own arguements.
In truth I'd say they're loosing ground with this latest effort. I haven't seen anyone announce that they are now going to pursue the LP agenda because of these threads, but there have been several who have announced their final and complete end with any LP association.
They have done an excellent job and showing their priorities...
Interesting point, but consider this - If it were proven that ignoring the Second Amendment would reduce crime, would you support doing so? Keep in mind that I'm assuming you were referring to the Federal WOD and not any particular state's anti-drug efforts.
Just like prohibition cost society more than legal alcohol today?
More so. We never got so loonie in locking up drinkers.
So9
Many people have actually been attracted to the Republican Liberty Caucus which JIM ROBINSON introduced to FR as a result of these threads. In fact, there is a "drug warrior" on this very thread who will remain anonymous who has told me that with an exception of their drug stance, he thinks their small-l libertarian philosiphy is quite appealing.
If you'd like, I can point you to a link to the thread that JIM ROBINSON posted. I'd be interested in y'alls opinions on the RLC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.