Posted on 02/15/2006 2:22:52 PM PST by MRMEAN
Conservatives never cease to fascinate me, given their professed devotion to “freedom, free enterprise, and limited government” and their ardent support of policies that violate that principle.
One of the most prominent examples is the drug war. In fact, if you’re ever wondering whether a person is a conservative or a libertarian, a good litmus-test question is, How do you feel about the war on drugs? The conservative will respond, “Even though I believe in freedom, free enterprise, and limited government, we’ve got to continue waging the war on drugs.” The libertarian will respond, “End it. It is an immoral and destructive violation of the principles of freedom, free enterprise, and limited government.”
The most recent example of conservative drug-war nonsense is an article entitled “Winning the Drug War,” by Jonathan V. Last in the current issue of The Weekly Standard, one of the premier conservative publications in the country.
In his article, Last cites statistics showing that drug usage among certain groups of Americans has diminished and that supplies of certain drugs have decreased. He says that all this is evidence that the war on drugs is finally succeeding and that we just need to keep waging it for some indeterminate time into the future, when presumably U.S. officials will finally be able to declare “victory.”
Of course, we’ve heard this type of “positive” drug-war nonsense for the past several decades, at least since Richard Nixon declared war on drugs back in the 1970s. What conservatives never tell us is how final “victory” will ultimately be measured. Like all other drug warriors for the past several decades, Last doesn’t say, “The statistics are so good that the drug war has now been won and therefore we can now end it,” but rather, “Victory is right around the corner. The statistics are getting better. Let’s keep going.”
Last failed to mention what is happening to the people of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, where drug lords compete violently to export illegal drugs into the United States to reap the financial benefits of exorbitant black-market prices and profits that the drug war has produced.
Recently, drug gangs fired high-powered weapons and a grenade into the newsroom of La Manana, killing Jaime Orozco Tey, a 40-year-old father of three.
Several other journalists have been killed in retaliation for their stories on the drug war, and newspapers are now self-censoring in fear of the drug lords. There are also political killings in Nuevo Laredo arising out of the drug war, including the city's mayor after he had served the grand total of nine hours in office.
According to the New York Times, “In Nuevo Laredo, the federal police say average citizens live in terror of drug dealers. Drug-related killings have become commonplace.” The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists says that the U.S.-Mexico border region is now one of the world’s most dangerous places for reporters.
Not surprisingly, Last did not mention these statistics in his “We’re winning the drug war” article.
During Prohibition, there were undoubtedly people such as Last claiming, “Booze consumption is down. We’re winning the war on booze. Al Capone is in jail. We’ve got to keep on waging the war on booze until we can declare final victory.”
Fortunately, Americans living at that time finally saw through such nonsense, especially given the massive Prohibition-related violent crime that the war on booze had spawned. They were right to finally legalize the manufacture and sale of alcohol and treat alcohol consumption as a social issue, not a criminal-justice problem.
Both conservatives and liberals have waged their war on drugs for decades, and they have reaped nothing but drug gangs, drug lords, robberies, thefts, muggings, murders, dirty needles, overcrowded prisons, decimated families, record drug busts, government corruption, infringements on civil liberties, violations of financial privacy, massive federal spending, and, of course, ever-glowing statistics reflecting drug-war “progress.”
Americans would be wise to reject, once and for all, the war on drugs, and cast drug prohibition, like booze prohibition, into the ashcan of history.
"The libertarianism that Reagan spoke of describes a philosophy of preserving individual liberty, with the idea that doing so is in the best long-term interest of the nation. Sadly, we're seeing an attempt to re-define it as being synonymous with anarchy simply to discredit the Libertarian party. The cost is the loss of the idea of libertarianism Reagan spoke, and leaving his words incoherent as a result."
If you don't know what you were getting at I can't help you.
Right, there are some that have been able to walk that tightrope. Sooner or later, you'll fall off and hit bottom. There are different classifications of drug addicts, imo. There are those who snort lines off the bathroom sink at work, keep a bottle of liquor in their desk drawer, and there are those who have had surgical or chronic pain issues. They can become dependent as well.
The problem is that some folks lump them all in the same dumpster.
I'm talking about the ones, and I think these are the ones MI was referring to, that are jobless criminals who end up in the emergency room. OD, shot in a bad drug deal, etc.
You asked me what it was that you were wondering. If you don't know, I can't help you.
Yes, with restrictions, like the many drugs that are already sold legally...alcohol,pain meds, ritalin, etc.
Ding ding ding ding! We Have a Winner!
That's pretty much how I see it. The current "war on drugs" has spawned entire industries based on intrusion into our most personal possessions - our own body tissues - in the name of "drug freedom".
Prison guard unions, urine testing labs, motivational speakers... Not to mention all the bureaucrats and jackbooted, badge-toting cowboys who make up the ranks of the DEA, as well as the revenue windfalls that cities and states collect in the form of fines and property forfeiture.
Ending the drug war would put all those people out of work, and they'd have to get real jobs instead of sucking at the government's teat. (Can't say I'd have a lick of sympathy for them, either)
The only way to true "drug freedom" would require a monstrously intrusive totalitarian state that would have made old Joe Stalin himself drool in envy.
Okay, so you had no purpose at all for writing that comment about President Reagan and libertarians. Fine by me.
Sarcasm is another indication of a losing argument.
I don't like seeing a perfectly good word, and perfectly good ideas that it represents corrupted to advance a political agenda.
Thanks. I cannot recall from history books or literature, any huge problems with now illegal drugs back then. Of course we all know what happened when they criminalized alcohol.
In your brave new world, state power would remain intact and overpowering. It would just be harnessed to the task of protecting drug dealers.
Yep, I loved that clown crusader talking about it so proudly. Sure, we stopped qualudes, but then we got crack. We haven't quite stomped out crack and then we get Ice and ecstasy, and then crystal meth. All the while, heroin is more plentiful and powerful than ever.
I guess that's what they call blind faith.
And if you think there's corruption now with law enforcement fighting against powerful drug interests, wait until you see the corruption that results when law enforcement becomes allied with powerful drug interests.
"That said, some changes need to be made. First of all, possession and use of drugs should not be nearly the crime it is. I don't think it should be any worse than running a stop light. You get a citation and a fine for it. Selling illegal drugs, however, should be a felony with serious prison time associated with it."
You would simply be doing what the cops do now, going after big fish when they can, and rarely prosecuting possession with any real teeth to the penalties. That people don't worry about carrying enough for personal use incentivizes sellers of drugs at the same time the law is criminalizing drugs which means the product will remain unpure and unsafe (inasmuch as drugs can be 'safe').
Now, I could somewhat agree with the notion we should penalize users as much as sellers. Shoot `em all, or make it a mandatory jail period of ten years for possession alone, but be consistent--if drugs are bad, they're bad no matter how much of them you have on you. And such a rule would have the likely effect of depressing the demand and supply. But sending a message that it's okay to possess small amounts sends the wrong message entirely. The half-enforcement we currently have is diminishing respect for law. This country needs to settle on illegalization or legalization and stop the halfway measures.
I was about to verbally lash out at someone on this thread who pulled the "it's for the chillll-drennnn" excuse out of their hat.
I consider "it's for the chillll-drennnn" to be on par with "it's in the name of public safety" when it comes to cheap excuses for the expansion of tyranny in society.
I'm sure Robispierre, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot justified their crimes in the name of "public safety" in some form or another.
Exactly. Addiction is a public health problem. I'd take the drug warriors' claim that they are interested in protecting people more seriously if they didn't pepper their posts with overt hostility toward others whose only fault is ingesting a substance they don't use (allegedly).
To believe that the only people who want to control your life are Democrats is foolish.
Where?
Lost again?
Maybe he had some more important things to attend to?
Not one bit.
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.