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.
that's what they all say dude.
ps using my logic doesn't mean prohibition again. what it means is we shouldn't be adding more fuel to a fire that isn't being controlled now.
...a few people I know who even used to steal from friends and neighbors to obtain drugs, have stopped within the past 15 years. I don't know any people personally have have picked up the habits in their place...
Maybe it's me.
"So I don't see how the war on drugs can be going that badly."
Well that part can be explained easily. We've spent TRILLIONS of dollars on the problem, over the course of 30+ YEARS. The problem has not significantly changed, in fact in many ways it's getting worse. The WoD has also been used as an excuse to increase government powers, including widespread confiscation of private property and cash.
Not only is good money being thrown after bad, thousands of lives are being ruined for no good reason. It's a travesty.
Agreed, but you left out the EEOC, EPA and GSA. The Department of Education could also be included.
And you weigh, what, 75 pounds?
This libertarian would be happy to see the "war" on drugs ended, immediately after the welfare state is dismantled. I'd rather finance the war on drugs than finance the colossal medical and "rehab" bills, and all the cost of crime, incurred by people who freely choose to destroy their own (and sometimes other people's) lives with drugs (including alcohol), and then present themselves to the taxpayer, over and over again, with the plea "I need help".
"I don't know any people personally have have picked up the habits in their place..."
Oh, there's a whole new crop of college kids, now. :)
I've seen that too. People who, when we were younger, did the stuff. For whatever reason or other most just seemed to out-grow it.
Did you know that Ronald Reagan called libertarianism the "heart and soul of conservatism"?
Yes he did...my how things change over time.
Matthew 5:7
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Enslaving disenfranchised addicts will only create activist anarchists upon release.
I don't see the the reason to finance any of this. With prices so cheap were certainly making no effect on supply.
Decriminalize the crap ...but hang the dealers. ...and when people hit bottom.
AA is free.
It's pseudoephedrine, and much of the objection to regulation came from ordinary users of this very inexpensive, very effective, long-acting, non-prescription decongestant. I take it every single day and am not interested in having to get a prescription every time I need more. Most of the pseudoephedrine used by meth-makers is purchased off the shelf at drug stores, not in bulk from manufacturers.
"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."
If you have a daughter, you should protect her from methamphetamine.
What changed?
Adam Smith - The Invisible Hand Speaks.
The short answer is called capitalism. The drug trade is capitalism in its most raw form. Supply vs. Demand.
The demand is reletively constant in terms of the percentage of the population that will use drugs. The more successful the war on drugs is in restricting supply, the higher the price the available drugs will fetch.
The higher the price, and therefore the greater the potential profit, the higher the inducement to enter the drug trade as a supplier. The higher the inducement, the greater the risks that will be hazarded to engage in it. The higher the risks involved, the Greater the extremes those in it will go to protect it (bribery, murder, etc).
[is anyone seeing a pattern yet?]
The argument, "what about the war on murder, etc." is invalid. There is no profitable, widespread demand for murder or most other crimes with possible exception of burglary (much of which is committed to pay for expensive drug habits).
The argument that totalitarian governments are successful in stemming drugs is also invalid. They are no more successful than free countries, they just have harsher punishments, which require greater bribes to public officials to avoid. Even certain countries in Asia that execute drug dealers have drug problems (which they do not admit to).
Any conservative that understands the basic precepts of capitalism and supports the current war on drugs is suffering from cognitive disconnect. They are no different from liberals that believe welfare programs will solve poverty.
The only solution that works on either problem is instilling in people the idea that they are responsible for their own actions. Responsible people are much less likely to use drugs or end up on welfare.
As for the rest, punish and jail them when or if they commit other crimes. Double the penalty for the crime if it is determined that they were chemically impaired at the time.
It's an educational battle that must be fought every generation.
IMHO.
Not Irish, therefore have a lower alcohol tolerance threshold than others. ;-)
Tobacco prohibition is next. The handwriting in on the wall.
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.