Posted on 06/07/2010 11:20:04 AM PDT by bamahead
Voter dissatisfaction with Republicans and Democrats is at historic levels, and the tea-party movement is hoping to play kingmaker in the November elections. The country’s current breed of discontent is ideal for the tea parties, because economic concerns are foremost, allowing the movement to sidestep the divisions between its libertarian and conservative wings.
As the elections near, however, voters will want to know where the party stands not just on the economy but on social issues. A perfect illustration is drug policy, where conservatives advocate continued prohibition but libertarians argue for legalization. Which way should the tea party lean when this issue arises?
If the party is true to its principles — fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets — it must side with the libertarians.
Fiscal responsibility means limiting government expenditures to programs that can be convincingly said to generate benefits in excess of their costs. This does not rule out programs with large expenditures, or ones whose benefits are difficult to quantify; national defense is guilty on both counts, yet few believe that substantial military expenditure is necessarily irresponsible.
Any significant expenditure, however, should come with a credible claim that it produces a benefit large enough to outweigh both the expenditure itself and any ancillary costs. From this perspective, drug prohibition is not remotely consistent with fiscal responsibility. This policy costs the public purse around $70 billion per year, according to my estimates, yet no evidence suggests that prohibition reduces drug use to a significant degree. And prohibition has unintended consequences that push its cost-benefit ratio even farther in the wrong direction. Prohibition generates violence and corruption by pushing drug markets underground and inflating prices. Prohibition inhibits quality control, so users suffer accidental poisoning and overdoses. Prohibition destroys civil liberties, inhibits legitimate medical uses of targeted drugs, and wreaks havoc in drug-producing countries.
Drug prohibition, at least when imposed at the federal level, is also hard to reconcile with constitutionally limited government. The Constitution gives the federal government a few expressly enumerated powers, with all others reserved to the states (or to the people) under the Tenth Amendment. None of the enumerated powers authorizes Congress to outlaw specific products, only to regulate interstate commerce. Thus laws regulating interstate trade in drugs might pass constitutional muster, but outright bans cannot. Indeed, when the United States wanted to outlaw alcohol, it amended the Constitution itself to do so. The country has never adopted such a constitutional authorization for drug prohibition.
Finally, drug prohibition is hopelessly inconsistent with allegiance to free markets, regardless of the level of government. Free markets should mean both that businesses can operate as they please and that individuals can purchase and consume whatever they want, so long as these actions do not harm others, even when such decisions seem unwise. Drug prohibition interferes with precisely these activities.
Thus, if the tea-party believes in its principles, it must choose the libertarian path on drug prohibition.
I'm not so sure the line can be so easily drawn. At some point, the damage done to the fabric of society needs to be taken into account.
What about the families of those on drugs? Do we just let the kids go hungry because dad is a druggie? After all, it isn't OUR fault he takes drugs. If he wants the liberty to get high, then we let his family suffer as "punishment" for his addiction?
I am just not convinced that legalization of drugs is the way to go. And yes, I'm aware the same issues can be made with alcohol, which is currently legal. I'm one who was a hungry, sometimes homeless kid because of dad's drinking. Thank God mom finally gave up on him and left. At any rate, the whole "but alcohol is legal" argument doesn't get anywhere with me.
The WOD’s is big business, To big to fail.
Okay, I’m going to go ahead and put you down as a jack-boot there Deb. You see, you are a moron. Show me anywhere where I said I don’t want drug laws enforced and I’ll take it back, but you won’t, so I won’t. You want to equate me with Bill Clinton? F*CK YOU. You’re idea of freedom is a lot closer to what both Clintons want than me or any real FReeper.
I’m guessing your real problem is you can’t get a man. Yeah, thats probably it.
Holy mackerel.
Look at what the drug issue has done for the Libertarian Party since they made it their signature issue.
Yeah, I know. Sorry trisham. “Deb” is on the verge of his conservative credentials being revoked.
The “but alcohol is legal” argument gets nowhere with me, either.
Families of addicts are not “society’s” problem. Teenage pregnancy wasn’t society’s problem either until the shame of being pregnant w/o being married became passe’ in our culture.
I don’t mean to sound heartless, but I don’t think there will be more addicts if drugs are legalized, nor do I believe that less families suffer because they are currently illegal.
My objection to the WoD is based on the corruption and police-state tactics that have emerged as a result, as well as the patriot notion that my personal business has no place within goobermint oversight UNLESS it causes immediate harm to another.
Try it this way: It is legal for me to get drunk as a skunk, but driving that way is (rightfully) forbidden.
The problem at the Party level is that practically made it their ONLY issue. And I admit, the legalization rationale does sound ridiculous standing on it’s own, until you quantify it within an overall movement toward smaller, less intrusive government, and the elimination of the welfare state as a whole.
The Libertarian Party has failed to craft that message as part of the broader move toward smaller government. Purists are only good at picking one issue and running with it...they typically don’t have the mental depth to make it part of a broader strategy, nor are they adept at effectively communicating that strategy. And the Libertarian Party has been controlled by rather unrealistic purists for some time now, since the early 80’s.
Oh, yeah, your happiness at destroying generations of young people with drugs.
But I appreciate your concern about my life. Not easy to find in self-obsessed, dope-drenched losers with no regard for the future of the country.
Only a ‘tard calls people losers instead of arguing one’s case.
‘Tard.
:-P
When someone believes that the only alternative to absolute federal control of the development, manufacture, sale and use of all drugs across the general population is anarchy, I don’t believe you’re going to have much luck getting them to latch on to concepts like constitutional repblics and government powers being limited to explicit enumerations.
You cross-dressing Marxists don’t deserve a “side”.
Got you down as the jack-boot deb, no problemo. Now go back to mucking up your state. And I’m still thinking you’re probably a guy.
I can do both!
True. I have a close relative like that. Completely separated from any semblence of reality or logic, sadly.
I’d like to propose the FR corollary to Godwin’s law, thus: “As a FR dope/LE thread grows longer, the probability of a Libertarian calling a conservative a “statist” approaches unity”.
FDR wasn't one to let a good crisis go to waste, either.
Tyically, its leftist pigs like you who think I'm a man because you can't imagine someone as blonde, aqua-eyed and adorable as I, could ever be so brilliant, kick your pimply ass so completely and also be female. But I am, in fact, a pink-cheeked, Scottish lass.
You are now free to continue polluting your teeny brain with whatever you can get up your nose.
Is that all you’ve got there, Jack-boot? Sounds like you’re admitting to being a slut to me. I think the government should regulate that destructive behavior of yours. What with your juvenile tag-line and obvious infatuation with yourself, anyone can see that your going to need government supervision.
Keepem’ coming jack-boot, I’ve got all day.
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.