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.
Like Ann Coulter said, I have no problem with drug legalization, but before I discuss it, abolish the Nanny State. Drug legalization is so unimportant relative to federal intrusions.
The author quotes " 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.
As has been pointed out not all conservatives support the war on drugs. Plus why are all drugs lumped together. I sure don't view the occasional use of pot in the same way I view a meth factory.
I don't think drug usage should be a crime. But if a crime is connected with the druge use ( robbery to get money for crack) the person should serve time for the crime and have to go through a rehab program. But throwing people in jail for drug use is a waste of limited resources. Too many criminals too little jail space. Keep jail for the real dangers to society.
What war on drugs?
Do we execute dealers? Do we imprison ALL users? Nope. We run commercials and give tickets.
Now that statement is going to cause some brain farts from those who worship Coulter but want to legalize dope.
The author quotes " 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.
As has been pointed out not all conservatives support the war on drugs. Plus why are all drugs lumped together. I sure don't view the occasional use of pot in the same way I view a meth factory.
I don't think drug usage should be a crime. But if a crime is connected with the druge use ( robbery to get money for crack) the person should serve time for the crime and have to go through a rehab program. But throwing people in jail for drug use is a waste of limited resources. Too many criminals too little jail space. Keep jail for the real dangers to society.
Oh, ha, like FRONTLINE is the benchmark of realism, much less reporting about it.
George Soros is a benefactor (d'oh) to all things "legalize drugs" related. I'm sure it suits his perspective and thus, engenders more money donated to, reports that the WOD is failed.
2. Every draconian law ever passed in this country for the past century has been "for the children." "For the children" has replaced "protecting white womanhood" as the excuse for politicians to pass the most asinine, moralistic laws.
I'm good with pulling hte plug on both. Toss in pulling the plug on the BATFE, IRS, FCC, and the NEA.
Think of the money we could save. Yeah... we might need to shoot a few junkies ourselves, but I'm ok with that too...
To state the obvious, Libertarians ARE NOT Conservatives.
Just because someone votes for a Republican candidate (some Libertarians do) does not mean that they are Conservatives.
Libertarians are socially liberal to the point of promiscuity. And most of them ardently support and seek the legalization of drugs (marijuana, narcotics, everything). Conservatives do not.
I agree that "big government" is not a good thing, is not a goal to have and to seek and to support. However, as to drugs, drug use and the industry, I do support a military response elsewhere to the problem, and, as to withing the U.S., support a federal, law enforcement response. I'd support more extensive sentencing for those who manufacture and traffic in drugs if given that opportunity to do so.
"No we are not right now, but if we tried to win we would if we got rid of dope smoking greeners like you."
In every culture of every society in the world "dope smoking" found a place. It has been eaten, smoked, etc. since man came upon it. Even our founding fathers grew and used it. You think tobacco was the first thing to get stuck in a pipe and smoked?
The Bible mentions that God put all the plants and animals here for man to use. He made no exception for the marijuana plant, which is one of God's creations. The fact that one can be arrested and thrown in jail for possessing a weed that grows naturally all over the world should be the cause for alarm. But no, Uncle Sugar knows what best fo us chillun, lawdamercy.
I still don't want to be on the road, flying anything with "legally" stoned people, anymore than I want to be with those intoxicated fools.
I disagree.
I think that (from a un-emotional, cost/benefits perspective), that decriminalization of use without also creating a legal form of supply is probably one of the worst options.
This would most likely increase demand, which would increase the size of the black market, and all the current problems associated with it.
I cannot disagree with the above statement. If my dad was alive, he'd be 95. I was a late blessing, haha! Anyway, my dad told me that you could buy things over the counter at any drug store that are now against the law, and that Coca Cola actually had a dash of....cocaine! Oh and he drove his mother out from MA to CA to visit friends, when he was 12 : )
The war on drugs is just another miserable government failure, unless you consider all the people who are now felons, civil liberties trampled, lives ruined, etc.
No, I don't partake of anything illegal.
Hemp as a fiber yes, smoking an hallucingen that leads other drug use and is just as culpable as alcogol in DWL accidents no.
Marijuana is the same as alcohol to me and should be restricted.
Which is why I support strong drunk driving laws (ie losing your license for six months to a year for first offense, losing it permanently for second offense). Driving "legally stoned" would be covered by such laws.
Are we winning the war on murder? How about burglary and robbery?
It is a war that cannot be won except in the minds of bureaucrats that profit from it. There is not a single instance in the history of mankind where prohibition against self-medication has worked or even made things better.
In the meantime it is used as an excuse to shred civil liberties. The BATF and DEA should be disbanded and its officers retrained as border patrol agents.
If you can't get accross the border in the first place, it makes smuggling that much more difficult.
Pot prohibition is a good example of that. " We must protect our fair daughers from the black jazz musicians and the Mexican migrants. They smoke that pot and go on murdering, raping rampages! It turns them into MONSTERS!!" A campaign of absoloutely false, racist propoganda started this "drug war" and people are wondering why it can't be won? Typical.
Are we winning the war against robbers? No. People still rob. So should we remove laws against robbing? Might as well. They are immoral and they don't work anyway. Libertarians are simply unaware of the responsibilities of a "free" society. They try to force anarchy down our throats by claiming that it's only way to really have freedom. No way. Freedom requires responsibility, there's no other way to have freedom.
I regard people who take drugs as being vaguely suicidal. But never mind, if they want to do it, OK - however - it should be a crime to operate any vehicle under the influence, and absolutely no tax dollars should go towards keeping them alive.
Regards, Ivan
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.