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.
Splitting hairs as to how they got into someone else's body does not change the fact of the drug killing some people.
That is not splitting hairs, its like saying we should outlaw lead because too many people are getting shot to death with lead bullets....
So heroin and cocaine have ill effects, so does smoking, alcohol, obesity, etc, should we outlaw those too?
Death from those drugs isn't necessarly a long term death, most of the time.
So is it a short term death? Is that better or worse? Is the time involved your sticking point?
Nor is it merely an "ill effect." Again, users aren't always sure what the drug has been cut with and legalizing those would just end up adding to already growing problem.
why are drugs cut? if they were legalized what would be the purpose of cutting them?
Make it available cheaply and there is no incentive to try to get off of it nor is their any longer a barrier to some who might not have tried to before to try it now.
So let them continue their habits. Do you really think a few dollars is going to stop someone from trying a drug? Remember the first one is free to whet the appetite.
Haven't you heard of the smoking bans? That is just one step towatds illegalizing that too.
Yes and that is where smoking impacts others not just the user, thanks for making my point!
As a later poster pointed out, you can't change human nature (or regulate morality)the WOD is a loosing proposition, and our society would be better off spending its time and resources on more important things like real crime and produictive efforts. The WOD is a circle jerk that enriches drug smugglers, drug dealers and takes our LEO's away from crimes that have real victims and perpetrators. Think of how the money could be better spent, oh by the way how many smugglers and dealers do you think report their income and pay tax on it?
I seriously doubt that most users of illegal drugs are financially self-sufficient over their lifetime. They are short-term sensation seekers, and most are spending money on drugs that they ought to be saving for retirement or a rainy day. In addition, their drug habits make them disproportionately heavy users of medical care, meaning that whether they're covered by private insurance or Medicaid or Medicare (through which nearly everybody is now covered in old age) they are taking out more than they put in. Furthermore, the illegal status of drugs gives employers the legal basis for not hiring and for firing drug users whose habits are interfering with their work. Take away the illegal status, and they'll be stuck with suits under the ADA from firees and non-hirees claiming they're being discriminated against because of their "disability" which is what they call their drug addiction. This has already happened with alcohol. AFTER we get rid of the welfare state, and the crap in our legal system that allows people to get off the hook for serious crimes by claiming they aren't responsible because the drugs they were on made them incapable of forming the "intent" that is a criteria for many crimes, then by all means leave them to their own devices to use whatever drugs they like and to reap the natural consequences. Currently, the portion of government expense that goes to propping up drug users, with "treatment", housing subsidies, food stamps, "job training", etc., is much larger than the portion that goes to fighting the "war" on drugs.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/11/12343.shtml
When NewsMax reported that Ronald Reagan did not oppose legalizing marijuana, we were surprised by the buzz the story created. Why the surprise? Reagan had a strong libertarian streak. He opposed such things as mandatory seat belt laws and requirements that motorcyclists wear helmets. We know Reagan was one of the first to challenge the Nanny State. Last week NewsMax publicized comments Ronald Reagan made in one of his radio broadcasts before he became president. (Reagan gave about 1,000 radio commentaries just before he became president.) After decades, the tapes have recently been released. In August 1979, Reagan dedicated one program to marijuana. While he warned of the many health risks, he did say, "If adults want to take such chances [using marijuana], that is their business." Soon after NewsMax ran the story we received a call from NORML, the Washington-based group that wants to legalize the drug. NORML had created controversy when it took out huge billboards of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and current New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, quoting their admission they both smoked pot. Bloomberg and Giuliani weren't chuckling and asked NORML to pull the ads. One person who was chuckling was Michael Reagan, the popular radio host and son of President Reagan. Mike saw the NewsMax story and said, "Of course Dad was for legalization." "He wasn't crazy," Reagan added, laughing, "He didn't want his kids in jail!" Of course, Ronald and Nancy Reagan's four kids came of age during the turbulent '60s and '70s. For the most part, the Reagan kids' lifestyles were not as straight-laced as their parents.
Oh dear I've fallen down the rabbit hole yet again. I am veddy, veddy sorry and promise not to let reason happen again.
Well, I guess it doesn't matter now. Some 14 yr olds can drive in an emergency. Poor kid...
You have no point other to try to quote made up points about tobacco. Studies say there are no effects from second hand somke, but that doesn't stop smoke gnatzies from still making the claim.
As for legalizing drugs, maybe you should check how well the program has worked were it was implemented. And, not only from pro-druggie people.
I have no real experience with it, but what I have observed, it is as much maligned with lies and disinformation as cannabis. You need to remember, it is not a opium derivative.
Not you, the other poster, that attempted to ridicule your remarks, when up the thread, to which I inserted his remarks, doing the very thing he ridiculed you over. Make sense? You and I are pretty much in agreement. Blackbird.
So you think using one violation of rights (welfare) as a justification for another violation of rights (drug criminalization) is a conservative argument? Then I'm sure you also support a ban on alcohol until get rid of the welfare state and the crap in our legal system, right?
Your view of marijuana is based on those users who attracted the attention of law enforcement; if your only exposure to alcohol was from such users, you'd be saying the same thing about that drug. In fact, since alcohol is more addictive than marijuana and, unlike marijuana, systematically increases violent behavior, it has even less place in our society. But we wisely decided that the harms done by criminalizing that drug, in lost freedom and enriched criminals, outweighed the harms of alcohol ... and we're slowly but surely finding our way to the same wisdom as regards marijuana.
Not to mention that murder and rape violate rights, whereas drug sale and use do not.
OK. I was a bit confused by your wording and wanted to clarify that.
I recognize that decriminalizing drugs at this point would cause a huge expansion in the welfare state, and thus further entrench socialism without providing any incremental restoration of liberty. Have you paid attention to the child welfare aspect of meth? Virtually all the growth in recent years in child abuse/neglect cases and accompanying state-funded foster care and medical care (the later often being very expensive due to the exposure to toxic substances in homes where meth is being manufactured), are attributable to the spread of meth use among adults exercising their "liberty". At present, we don't have the legal wherewithal to imprison these adults at hard labor for the rest of their lives, to help make a dent in the costs they have inflicted on society; we don't have the right to sterilize them; and we are obligated to pay for all the medical care they can benefit from because they are eligible for Medicaid due to their "indigence". Meanwhile they are free to continue exercising their "liberty" to use meth while popping out more babies who will be permanently damaged from the start due to mom's meth use during pregnancy, and further damaged from neglect and malnutrition for however long it takes for the authorities to show up and consficate their latest offspring.
And yes, I'd be happy to outlaw alcohol until the welfare state can be dismantled, because it inflicts much the same harm on other people's liberty as illegal drug use does. Personally, I don't drink alcohol at all, and will teach my children that it is utterly self-destructive to drink it. But the main reason I'd support outlawing alcohol pending the dismantling of the welfare state, is that I know that if that could actually be accomplished, the hordes of booze-lovers in this country would make sure the welfare state was dismantled within a week.
Soccer moms trying to be super moms.
Also - I wonder if many people are aware that the drug Adderal, prescribed for AD(H)D, is amphetamine. It's the new Ritalin for the kiddoes to sell to their classmates. It's not as powerful as crystal meth (the differences are similar to how cocaine differs from crack cocaine), but the potential for addiction is still pretty high I assume.
Anyhow, I said all that to say that those who assume meth is a "trailer park" drug, really need to think again. Crack is not exclusively a "ghetto" drug, either, and addiction is not classist.
"Huge"? Only if the increase in drug use was huge ... and what reason is there to think it would be? Is illegality YOUR primary reason for not using meth? It's way down on my list.
and thus further entrench socialism without providing any incremental restoration of liberty.
The liberty to use drugs, like the liberty to overeat, is a true liberty.
And yes, I'd be happy to outlaw alcohol until the welfare state can be dismantled, because it inflicts much the same harm on other people's liberty as illegal drug use does.
Are you aware that outlawing alcohol was tried in this country? Have you heard how that experiment in social engineering turned out?
Huh??? Where the hell did I mention drug dealers?
I'm all about REDUCING and DECENTRALIZING the power of the state. Where the hell did you pull that one out of?
Oh, I know. You're one of those "Liberty and justice of me, but prison and persecution for thee" types.
I can tell from your immediately twisting things and putting words in my mouth - as well as the old "protecting drug dealers" straw man argument. Just like my XXXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX ex-father-in-law:
He'd rant, "Drug users should be executed without trial!" as he swigged down another shot of rotgut. Lucky for him he never got his wish - he would have had to murder his own kids.
In the interest of promoting civil discourse on this subject, I will hold my tongue, sir.
"I am speaking here with 12 years as an undercover narcotic officer..."
What, you didn't have what it took to be a REAL cop? Like Homicide or Robbery or Fraud? Someone I knew years ago had been married to a cop and she told me that all the cop parties she ever went to, they had the best drugs in town, ALL OVEr the house, courtesy of the drug cops. Is THAT what you do and why you want to keep drugs illegal for the poor schmoes who want to have an alternative to booze?
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.