Posted on 06/18/2005 9:42:25 AM PDT by flixxx
Exasperated by pessimism about the "war on drugs," John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, says:
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Unfortunately I am fairly skeptical about the drug problem
Maybe because it has failed continuously and consistently since it was begun?
The whole WOD from the Volstead Act on has been a cruel and expensive boondogle.
It has accomplished nothing useful.
SO9
I noticed that as a good quote too. Do you think that can be positively accomplished by heavy punitive actions?
Like most supporters of the drug war, this useless, incompetent dunce has it exactly backwards. He is a tool of the drug cartels. Their success depends on criminalization of drugs to limit the supply and raise the price. They don't want legalization; it would kill their profits overnight!
Drug warriors, you are fools! You have been manipulated by the media frenzy that began in the 80's and continues to the present day. Why do you people distrust the media and government on every other issue of the day, yet blindly follow the party line on drug criminalization like gullible sheep? Do you know why those in government and the media have been beating the drum against drugs so loudly?
Think back to the other big news of the day when the drug war started under Reagan: Countries in Latin America and Asia owed billions of dollars to the big New York banks, money they had no hope of ever repaying.
By cracking down on drugs, the bankers' accomplices in government and the media ensured that 1) the concentration (and hence the addictiveness) of drugs would go up, the better to facilitate smuggling, 2) the price would go WAY up, and 3) many billions of dollars would flow from the pockets of drug-addicted American losers into the economies of the countries that produced and smuggled the drugs, and thence back into the coffers of David Rockefeller and his ilk.
This is just the economic argument against the drug war. I submit that the toll in human lives has been greater. More people have died fighting the drug war than ever were killed by drugs, more people have had their lives ruined by falling afoul of the law than would have suffered ill effects of drug use, and every year more of our ancient liberties are surrendered to Big Government by patriotic Americans who ought to know better, all in the name of a futile waste of time and money and lives that cannot possibly succeed.
If you support the War on Drugs, you're no conservative. You are a statist fool, and a gullible tool of Big Government, Big Media and Big Banking. You ought to be ashamed of your pig-headed, bloody-minded ignorance.
-ccm
I don't think total legalization would solve anything from an economic standpoint. Keep in mind that even in the states that do legalize marijuana for 'medicinal' use, the pot is often pretty low-grade. Drug abusers are always looking for the quick fix -- the highest quality for the greatest possible high. There's no other social explanation for why some moron would be willing to inject black tar heroin into his forearm or smoke stuff that's been melted in a plastic spoon.
However, I do agree with you in the aspect that there are definitely two things that turn self-declared hard-line conservatives into liberals at the drop of a hat: drugs and tv/radio censorship. But then, we do have to stand for some degree of social decency, or we'll be left with the liberal "do it because it feels good" paradise.
Someone has to take a stand. But it does need to be a reasonable one.
Good post. You make some great points. Another thought to consider about media backing of the drug war is the reflexive defensive human nature to deflect negativity from oneself. The press desires to have a stainless reputation yet they are just an arm of the greater Hollyweird entertainment industry and desire to be so. In order to be a part of that and preserve some appearance of integrity they play along with Woddie fantasy of helping people by punishing drug users/producers.
Take a stand for liberty.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry M. Goldwater
The, "better natures," argument like our very founding documents relies upon a presupposition of a society which, because of a faith in Natural Law, does not rely primarily or exclusively on government to codify its moral values. This is why those working so hard to subvert the American way of life have concentrated their efforts on deconstructing belief in any sort of absolute morality. When the, "heavy punitive actions," consist primarily of the disapproval of the overwhelming majority of society, it works. When the majority of society is led to believe that the proper way to deal with offensive and deviant behavior is to, "try and understand," and fully relinquish moral definitions and judgments to legislators and jurists, everybody loses. When a culture is led to deemphasive virtue and ridicule morality, situational ethics and moral relativism run rampant and those who get to define such things will increase in power. In this manner will our nation be lost.
That is all good as far as it goes but it doesn't answer the question I asked.
".... the number of people incarcerated for drug offenses on any given day has increased from 50,000 in 1980 to 450,000 in 2003...."
The WOD will continue as long as it supports the wages of law enforcement, lawyers, prison guards, phoney drug schools, judges, and state thru federal government officials. Imagine what would happen to these ghouls if drugs were legalized but controlled like, say, beer.
Inflation adjusted prices for pot may have fallen but unfortunately, thanks to lots of illegal alien labor, the average carpenter's wages have fallen too in non-inflation adjusted dollars.
I believe it does...but like in the rest of life, sometimes the answers are not that easily discerned, so I'll try again.
If you mean "heavier punishments," strictly in regards to legislation, sentencing guidelines, mandatory counseling, etc. no it will not work.
If, "heavier punishment," is viewed in a less restricted scope and includes public, private, familial etc. condemnation of the behavior, exclusion from the community, abandonment by general society until such time the offending behaviors are modified, then yes it will. This, however, can only be achieved if the society at large can come to a general agreement regarding some basic moral absolutes and the individuals within that society assume a degree of responsibility for trying to live according to those moral precepts instead of lionizing those who defy them.
In what is perhaps the last intelligent thing ever written by a Democrat, Daniel Moynihan examined Durkheim's Constant in light of American social trends at the time (1993). Bork, in Slouching toward Gomorrah, expands further on Moynihan's piece and discusses it further in the context of liberal jurisprudenc.
The WOD was certainly emphasized under RR, but Nixon started it when he converted the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD - ominous sounding, eh?) to the DEA.
In the early 70s, the DEA became fixated on cocaine even though there wasn't much of a market for it (in '71 you could buy an ounce of coke for about $100, but nobody wanted it.) The DEA appropriated $10 million to set up street buys of coke and the chase was on!
The DEA actually helped to create the market for coke.
Don't assume that all drug warriors are fools -- some of them are making a damn good buck out of the WoD.
I've been smoking pot since I was 15 (30+ years), and in all that time I have NEVER advocated legalizing it. Right now, we have the big two drugs in our society (tobacco and alcohol). If marijuana were legalized, the big two would immediately become the big three. Don't try to tell me that the overall cost to society, in terms of lost productivity and auto accidents, wouldn't be greater than whatever we spend on the WOD. "But we'll never win the war on drugs". Well, we'll never keep people from robbing banks or going to hookers, so what's your solution, legalize them both? If anyone wants to give me a real solution to this, let me know. If you're just going to flame me, please don't bother.
The demand for drugs will never be stopped.
The key word there is be which implies a forced end to demand. As you say that won't happen. But that is not to say that demand for drugs is some fixed phenomena of human nature. Joe 6-pack's post to me is the answer to demand. Attitudes must change.
That was the point of the question in my first post. To paraphrase it "will coercion solve the drug problem?" If force or coercion could change attitudes about how to treat one's own mind and body then it could solve the drug problem but I don't think that works. If someone is attacking you then force and coercion can definitely change attitudes if applied decisively. (see War on Terrorism) But it is ridiculous and malicious to think of applying that kind of force against people for abusing themselves. The Woddies don't get that distinction.
Throwing that "if" in there makes your point work, sure. That is the only way your point works. But that is the social/cultural solution which I addressed in my last post. (which I know you couldn't have seen before you replied to me) The context I was asking the question in was taken from the article and referred solely to the government solution of criminal liabilities and I specified "heavy punitive actions" so I wasn't even ruling out less harsh legal consequences than are currently imposed.
What you originally posted is wisdom. There will never be a utopia where there is no suffering but suffering can be greatly reduced by the means suggested there. As that quote was originally intended to say it is quite true that our free republic with its liberties can't be maintained without a good measure of moral restraint in the populace.
Not to worry. I won't try and tell you anything. I'm sure no one can. ; )
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.