Define "we".
*Slammin'* question.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
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.
The probability of a social conservative calling an "original intent" constitutionalist a "pothead" is at least as good.
Perhaps, but you fail to say why.
So, I'll tell you why.
"The War on Drugs" is largely regarded as a failure for several reasons, the following (in no particular order) among them:
"The War on Drugs" is, at root, a war on human nature, which has 10,000 years of history testifying to its insatiable appetite for debauchery. Well, humanity can't even keep its potty mouth in check; so, who's the idiot who ever thought we could win a War on Drugs?
A substantive portion of the perception that the "War on Drugs" has failed (or is failing) as owing to a near-complete lack of knowledge as to how completely wrecked our civilization would be if the drug traffic went unchecked. In light of the first point, this consideration is decidedly NOT a plus for the Libertarian arguments.
The War on Drugs focuses only on one side of the problem: supply. This is a doomed strategy, as economics dictates that; where there is demand, supply will continue to exist despite all efforts to stop it. Without a campaign against demand that is at least equal in power to the campaign against supply, the entire effort must be regarded as a stillborn concept.
That stated, Libertarians would do well to take a lesson from the disarray, disunity, and general lack of economic and social progress experienced in Israel during the time of the Judges, and note the principle cause given in the biblical text:
25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
— Judges 21:25 NASB
Not until Israel dispensed with this libertarian streak and opted for a monarchy did they begin their ascent to their Golden Age under David and Solomon.
Why?
Only the force of a strong national government that elevates the status of religion in public life can place sufficient impetus upon the individual to live in righteous self-governance, but that only indirectly, and this is not the best rout as it increases, rather than decreases, the role of government. And, lest I be misconstrued, not just any old religion, either. Note again from Israeli history how their Golden Age fell to ruin and exile as they increasingly embraced pagan beliefs, and fell to the worship of mere idols.
No, the surest rout to liberty is that the people would, of themselves, aspire to individual, righteous self-governance, as God defines "righteous." The more righteous self-governance imposed by the people upon themselves, the more hands-off may be their national government.
That is why John Adams said, rightly, "Our Constitution was made for only a religious and moral people. It is entirely unsuitable for any other." To put a fine point on it: no individual who refuses to govern his own self in righteousness will be suitable as a citizen under The Constitution of the United States.
And whence derives the impetus to righteous self-governance?? In answer I commend to you the experience and intellect of no less than George Washington, himself:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
— President George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19th, 1796
There is no conflict between the concepts of maximum liberty, and the scriptural declaration that "[Messiah] shall rule [the Nations] with an iron scepter," which speaks very poignantly of a powerful, top-down global government. The rise of a people whose hearts are turned toward righteous self-governance in the sight of God is THE only explanation as to how the two are brought into harmony.
Let whatever outcry is aroused by these arguments will serve as further insight into why "The War on Drugs" is failing.
You clearly didn't read my comments at post 33.
Quote:
In accordance with the Tenth Amendment, the Federal "war on drugs" is improper, but that does not preclude the States (or their constituent jurisdictions) from banning or otherwise regulating the consumption of various controlled substances nor does it preclude the People themselves voluntarily electing not to consume said controlled substances.
As a general rule, I don't like busybodies, do-gooders, nanny-staters, and people who think they know better than others.
Unfortunately, it seems like you fit into more than one of the above categories.
As I understand things, the Federal "war on drugs" has been a progressive initiative from the get go, and it truly puzzles me as to why "conservatives" even bother to support it.
Child neglect is already a crime.
Amen.
This one is at the top of my list.
How about you?
The Code of Ur-Nammu - First two laws mention, murder and robbery. Adultery also mentioned, and slavery (which was the norm then).
Later on, the Old Testament - Approx 1200BC - 10 Commandments (Exodus). Even the most hardline libertarians agree that laws are needed to protect people and property. Even opposing schools of thought agreed on those issues.
But the war on some drugs, along with most "strict liability" offenses (except statutory rape laws due to age of consent which are needed, and most libertarians agree) has nothing to do with this.
Whether I smoke a joint, drop LSD (never had), or try ecstasy (Haven't) doesn't not affect morals anymore than having a drink (I'm not Baptist). What I do under influence does, and abusing drugs, including drinking, certainly is bad for my morals and my family that it does affect.
I agree on the importance of morals from a personal standpoint and their importance. Not everything however should have the force of law behind it, as A. It's not always the best tool for enforcing them, and B. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, and right now B is a major problem in this country due to the corruption of governments and heavy-handedness of too many police and prosecutors these days looking for the big score and publicity instead of justice.
“nonesense
to side with it’s true priciples, the good of the people demands that drug use be illegal
That means drug legalization is an abomination.”
______________________________________________________
Where in the US Constitution is the authority to regulate what individuals consume?
Either the Tea Party is for constitutionally limited govt, which would include a repeal of all prohibition, or it is just another big govt party like the other two.
“Pot would be a lucrative business if the Government stayed out of the growing and distribution.. Tax it and let the tax revinue go to hiring additional LE officers. But that is a perfect Scenario that would never happen because the gubment would want to control it all..”
_______________
End the war on drugs, and we won’t need to hire more LE officers. We may even be laying some off.
ensure doemstic tranquilty
promote the general welfare
yeah, I’d say drug usage is against both of those
or are you a pothead??
ensure doemstic tranquilty
promote the general welfare
yeah, I’d say drug usage is against both of those
or are you a pothead??
______________________________
I don’t use any chemicals, but if I wanted to it is nobody’s business.
Your Constitutional exerpts do not apply to personal consumption.
Repeal of all federal laws for which there is no Constitutional authority.
Pardon me, but this makes no sense at all to me.
Define "we".
Pot, kettle, black.
*Slammin'* question.
Sorry Race, but with over 16 years of law enforcement under my belt you are dead wrong.
The WOD has increased government authority via erosion of the 4th and 5th amendments; increased government spending; militarized law enforcement; caused overcrowding in prisons (which increases government spending) and engendered a distrust between law enforcement officers and the citizens they serve.
It’s a failure, plain and simple. And an unconstitutional one at that.
Guess I should also have mentioned that your position, criminalizing what a person decides to put in their body, strikes to the core of whether one supports individual liberty or government control.
Oh, and I should also mention that the WOD is not working from a social perspective either.
So why would a “conservative” support such a policy failure that is only successful at increasing taxes, increasing government spending and government authority?
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.