Posted on 05/21/2009 10:27:30 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
DENVER -- Admitting that it may be "political suicide" former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said its time to consider legalizing drugs.
He spoke Wednesday to the Lincoln Club of Colorado, a Republican group that's been active in the state for 90 years. It's the first time Tancredo has spoken on the drug issue. He ran for president in 2008 on an anti-illegal immigration platform that has brought him passionate support and criticism.
Tancredo noted that he has never used drugs, but said the war has failed.
"I am convinced that what we are doing is not working," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedenverchannel.com ...
Prohibition is like Marxism -- it's a good idea that hasn't ever worked anywhere, apparently, because we haven't had enough of it.
But it has to be enforced at all levels of a society, or it will not. Societal forces that allow for the sub-culture to form and exist must also be controlled, or the behavior will be continued.
Addiction is not a problem of a particular subculture. Addicts are blue-collar workers, executives, housewives, streetwalkers, professional athletes, schoolteachers, truck drivers and physicians. You're focusing on "the party scene," club kids and hippies, who form just one sliver of the problem (but who do a disproportionate share of the prison time).
Prior to the 60's drugs were all illegal at the state level to some degree. and the popular culture was against them, as were societal and familial norms. The prohibition against drugs worked pretty well.
Prior to the 20th century, there simply was not such a thing as an illegal drug in most of the US. Patent medicines and "tonics" were the main medications for most 19th century Americans, and those had THC, cocaine, morphine, sometimes all three.
Addiction was commonplace, though not on the scale we see today. People overdosed and died, people went into hospitals for treatment, and doctors would routinely prescribe opiates in smaller, measurable doses to wean their patients off the hard stuff.
The first federal law regulating drugs wasn't until 1906, and that merely required accurate labeling. Heroin wasn't outlawed until 1924, and marijuana until 1937. Prior to federal government involvement, there were not comprehensive anti-drug laws at the state level; they were relatively few and widely scattered.
Marijuana was outlawed after a campaign of public hysteria stoked by the Hearst newspapers with the active encouragement of the liquor industry, which feared that if their customers discovered weed they wouldn't come back to booze when prohibition ended.
Back to my main point: Drug prohibition is not a phenomenon as old as the Republic. There was no law at all until the 20s, and the laws weren't very actively enforced until the '60s. Drug prohibition is not the way things always were; it's a construct a couple of generations old, no more traditional or sacrosanct than the "Great Society."
The Constitution does NOT GRANT FedGov authority over murder. Murder comes under STATE jurisdiction. The Constitution grants FedGov authority over THREE crimes: Treason, Piracy and counterfeiting. That’s it and all. ONLY exception being murder in the military, which would fall under Congress’ authority to write rules governing military and naval forces. Sorry, you’re way out in LEFT field here, Chuck.
And rules of the road are at the STATE AND LOCAL levels ONLY. Congress has an obligation to provide Post Roads, true, but it has given the money to the States AND the authority to govern traffic on them.
With respect to INTERSTATE commerce, the SOLE responsibility and authority granted the Central Government, per the words of the Founders, was to ensure a level field on trade between the Several States. For example, Maryland could not put a tariff on goods coming in from Pennsylvania either in transit to Virginia or for sale in Maryland. That sort of thing. They were VERY specific in their writings, because they KNEW that the government could and would try to regulate EVERYTHING under that clause and that was NOT their intent. So sorry, but the modern interpretations of the ICC are TOTALLY and UTTERLY at odds with the Founders’ view.
Just an FYI: “Heroin” started out life as a trademark of the Bayer Company for a narcotic preparation. It was touted originally as a “wonder drug” AND available over the counter.
Cocaine was and IS CURRENTLY used in medicine... Ophthalmologists use it as a local anesthetic in eye surgery, for example. And it was, at one time, an ingredient in ... wait for it ... COCA Cola. (The leaf of the COCA plant.)
Neither drug came into its present form AFTER Prohibition II was begun. And there have been no new FORMS of opiates on the underground market that I have ever heard of, but sometimes heroin is marketed in SMOKABLE form. And, of course CRACK Cocaine is Cocaine in a smokable form. That IS a development of the war on some drugs... more high for less money... and more dangerous and addictive, so I hear.
Good questions.
The answer is we should give up on all of that adventurism. The money to wage these "wars" isn't there anymore.
Our next "war" has to be against the imperial congress, supreme court and executive branches of the federal government.
They have to be dragged back to what they are allowed to do by the Constitution.
Or else we just need to tear down the current structure and replace it with one that fits the Constitution... and put some SERIOUS penalties in place for those who would try to circumvent it again. Maybe bring back the rack and the Iron Maiden for those who would try to impose an income or a property tax again. And give long, cleansing baths in boiling oil for the next would-be drug warriors and internationalists. The problem we have right now is that there are NO PENALTIES attached to what government is doing to us... and that needs to be resolved by adding them. And APPLYING them to the miscreants.
You must be from another planet if you don't use caffeine, nicotine, acetaminophen, poultry, sugar, decongestants, antihistamines, etc.
He has the same philosophy as the next President of the United States.
All related. The war on some drugs enboldened these people.
Now, they need a smackdown.
Maybe we need to change the war tactics. Maybe we need a "surge" to combat the dealers.
I disagree. There is truth in what you say. There are addicts in every walk of life, but by and large, the lion's share of the problem is centered upon the young. Those addicted later in life are likely "still addicted", or returning to past indiscretions.
Yes, there are those (like me) who become addicted through prescriptions later in life (still am), but generally, folks tend to settle down and get married after 35, and do not attain the same level of narcissism they had in their youth, and therefore, their need for self indulgence is naturally less.
There is equally a certain amount of wisdom imparted to many of us that find our wilder days to be of less value than we had once assumed. That insight is called "growing up".
And it certainly is a product of a certain sub-culture, btw. If your children are raised "Country", with an intact two-parent household, in a Conservative Christian environment (church, home or private school), statistically there is a very good chance that your children will miss the drug culture completely.
Redneck kids get pretty crazy, but the worst you will be likely encounter is fighting, fast cars, tobacco, alcohol, and sex. Not to say these are not bad enough, but they are a far cry from the ailments found in other subcultures.
The reason is because the drug culture is rejected completely throughout the country subculture. Look at the music, the paraphernalia of rebellion used by the kids, the role models, and etc., and compare them to the venues of rock and rap (as instances)... Look at the supporting industries and workplaces and what they will put up with... Look at the comparative respect for elders, law, and country.
I am not saying that any subculture is immune to abuses and addiction (admittedly alcohol and tobacco are addictive), but I will certainly suppose that some are better than others, and statistically, certain subcultures will be more inclined to lead a child into the drug scene than others.
Prior to the 20th century, there simply was not such a thing as an illegal drug in most of the US. Patent medicines and "tonics" were the main medications for most 19th century Americans, and those had THC, cocaine, morphine, sometimes all three.
That is not true. Morphine addiction was a terrible problem after the civil war, especially in the south, where battle casualties were not limited to soldiers, and opium was pervasive wherever the Chinese were, particularly in west coast China-towns and in towns along the Chinese-built railroad lines.
The first federal law regulating drugs wasn't until 1906, and that merely required accurate labeling. Heroin wasn't outlawed until 1924, and marijuana until 1937. Prior to federal government involvement, there were not comprehensive anti-drug laws at the state level; they were relatively few and widely scattered.
I was not concerned about federal law, and I will concede the point. But state and county law is another thing. I would grant you that there were no comprehensive state laws, as in universal to all states, but that was largely because not all states were having problems with addiction on a large scale. The delivery systems were not in place to supply the drugs, nor were the people in a position to afford them.
But as railroads and road systems progressed, allowing distribution systems to develop, The laws followed those distribution systems. And as coin replaced barter in outlying areas, and prosperity came with the roads and availability, so did a pervasive fight against addictions.
But even with distribution in place, there was an accepted limit to many of the vices. They were "across the tracks" from the proper society, in a decidedly different part of town. The "red-light district", if you will. That uneasy acceptance went on for many years in a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" mentality.
I think what the 60's did was mainstream the "across the tracks" crowd, and bring it into the entirety of society, to were it could no longer be ignored. I think that's why society became reactive, and I think it was necessary. I think it still is necessary, albeit misplaced at the federal level.
It is a very good rule of thumb that what one endorses one will get more of, and legalizing all drugs will only add to the problem.
What would you propose to do with all the addicts, and the wreckage they will leave in their wake, if we were to do as you propose? Let them fend for themselves? Because otherwise, you must also be in favor of a burgeoning welfare system, one like we have never seen...
Big, intrusive, obstructive, uncontrolled (soon uncontrollable) government does, though.
That is a libertarian principle as well.
Welcome home.
Same with dietary sugar and Big Macs.
What is your point?
Hey y’all....
How about you each provide 3-5 of your favorite aspects of the War on Drugs?
Maybe you like the way it keeps drugs out of kids’ hands, or prevents addiction, or eliminates crime and violence, prevents judicial corruption, or perhaps how it enhances our individual rights.
Those are mine, how about yours?
Or it could be a plan of folks who just want to be left alone and not have their doors broken down in the middle of the night, beaten to the floor, handcuffed and their dogs shot when the drug warriors had the wrong address.
Yeah, and your War on Drugs sure prevents that, doesn't it?
Linking welfare and disability abuses to ending the War on Drugs is your way of saying that you're ok with a welfare state as long as you can keep pot illegal.
How about you each provide 3-5 of your favorite aspects of the War on Drugs?
Maybe you like the way it keeps drugs out of kids’ hands, or prevents addiction, or eliminates crime and violence, prevents judicial corruption, or perhaps how it enhances our individual rights.
Those are mine, how about yours?
************************************************************************************
LOL!
Thanks for posting.
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.