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.
I don't know how many years I've been reading headlines here that we're loosing the war on drugs but I still haven't seen the U.S. surrender or the Soros camp declare victory.
"At least he admits there is a big difference between conservatives and libertarians."
Right. Libertarians have a set of principles that we stick to no matter what. "Conservatives" (I use that term loosely in this context) apparently have a set of principles which change drastically depending on whether THEIR rights might be infringed or SOMEONE ELSE'S rights. Hypocrites.
Stick to your core values: small government, personal freedom, personal responsibility and privacy. If you do it diligently, you might find you've become a Libertarian. :-)
Well as far as I know, it's always been a crime to operate machinery or a motor vehicle, under the influence.
You might want to reconsider the idea of no tax dollars to treat accident victims. Do you have any idea how long it can take for toxocology tests to come back from the lab? Easier to treat, than to get slapped with a lawsuit by the sober dead person's family.
Habitual meth users are easy to spot, though.
If it doesn't work for alcohol, why will it work for pot?
are pot smokers more responsible citizens?
No danger of that happening...I've read the LP platform.
I'm suggesting that if a drug addict does enter the emergency ward, they bear the costs of treatment. If they have no money, they're forced to pay it off through some form of work...make it extremely unpleasant.
Regards, Ivan
I don't think there is losing or winning - the status quo is preserved.
Regards, Ivan
That's one of the biggest problems. There is yet to exist a reliable roadside marijuana test.
Legalize it, regulate it. It worked for alcohol, and it will work for, at the very least, soft drugs.
BTW: I have smoked pot (in my mispent youth) and have consumed alcohol. Guess which one had a more negative effect on my judgement?
clearly the pot.
2. Put a twinkie in front of the accused. If they rush for it, they have been tokin'.
There are various physical tests that officers can administer in lieu of a breathalyzer (walking a straight line, responding to common questions irrationally, etc.) that would be effecitive in such a scenario.
Well, I'm not taking drugs, nobody in my immediate family are taking or have been offered drugs lately. I have a few relatives who have stopped taking drugs. I know who people continue to complain about the government restricting their ability to obtain drugs.
So I don't see how the war on drugs can be going that badly.
"Hemp as a fiber yes, smoking an hallucingen that leads other drug use and is just as culpable as alcogol in DWL accidents no."
While I don't agree with your opinions regarding pot and alcohol, I do respect them.
If pot is indeed a "gateway drug" it is directly because of all the false claims made against it. People tell SO MANY lies about it trying to get their kids not to try it. Eventually a kid does try it or meets normal people who do it and finds out he's been lied to all this time, and he HAS been lied to. So the kid thinks this applies to everything else. "They lied to me about pot so they probably lied to me about cocaine" Well, no. That part was true. Hopefully the kid figures that out before it's too late. Often, he doesn't.
I contend that placing pot in with all the other drugs is what is really the "gateway". Kids are taught that there is no difference when actually there is quite a bit of difference. Kids end up finding out that a sharing joint does less to them than the 3 beers they sneaked out of Dad's cooler. After learning of that big lie, why would they believe what is said about harder drugs?
Consuming four beers had a worse effect on my judgemant than ganja ever did.
We're talking Mary Jane here, NOT PCP or LSD.
Effedrin = ephedrine
"We're talking Mary Jane here, NOT PCP or LSD."
Falling on deaf ears to some. Some people just refuse to believe they are any different, regardless of fact.
I consider myself more libertarian than a Republican, and I think those making a profit should be severely punished, death penalty IMO. Those using, should be punished by a caning like in Singapore. As a matter of fact, we could lower costs considerably, if we used corporal punishment for various offenses, instead of the "cruel and unusual punishment" of prison. Rapists and murderers, of course deserve to be locked away from society, as do others. Those who commit robberies, would be better off with a involuntary servitude for those they victimize. Make them a slave until the debt is paid. With todays electronics, it could be done. It makes no sense to let the state make the money from the work release program, let the workers pay the victims or stay in prison.
Ones rights end where another's rights begin.
Murder, burglary and robbery violate the rights of others.
Possessing a flower gifted from the garden of God does not.
"...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." - Thomas Jefferson
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.