*** 
Posted on 05/19/2002 8:13:50 PM PDT by hellonewman
Drug dealers are the scum of the earth and the dregs of humanity.
There. I hope that satisfies you.
Some, no doubt, will ignore this because this is an essay about the futility of the Drug War. Political correctness is not just a liberal's disease. Many conservatives -- not all, but many -- have done with the Drug War what liberals have done with racial quotas and gay rights. When anyone says anything in opposition to the Drug War, they spaz out as if they were tripping on Angel Dust.
Such were my thoughts after reading Bill O'Reilly's May 16 column on World Net Daily in which he classifies drug dealing as a "crime against humanity." O'Reilly tells some gut wrenching stories about drug addicts and their families, and lays the blame at the feet of the dealers who sold the drugs to these addicts. He writes that, "If nobody sold drugs, there would be no drug problem".
Liberals frequently brand those who oppose racial quotas "racists" and those who oppose gay rights "homophobic." Conservatives, likewise, frequently brand those who oppose the Drug War as "pro-drug". In this respect they are no different from those people theysay they oppose diametrically. They fail to recognize that just because the government is doing nothing to address a certain issue, does not mean that nobody is doing anything to address this issue. They fail to recognize that their agendas have produced numerous unintended consequences and that continuing with these agendas will only make bad problems worse.
O'Reilly writes: "The truth is that selling hard drugs to people who may die from using them, may become enslaved by addiction, may abuse their children while intoxicated, and may commit crimes to buy more drugs is a vile enterprise that should be condemned by society. The (New York State drug) laws were passed to protect Americans from people who would prey upon them. The average pusher on the street sells to scores of people every day. The damage that person is doing is enormous."
Let us pretend that this is the 1920s, and we are advocating a continuation of alcohol prohibition. "The truth is that selling alcohol to people who may die from using it, may become enslaved by drunkenness, may abuse their children while intoxicated, and may commit crimes to buy more booze is a vile enterprise that should be condemned by society. The Eighteenth Amendment was passed to protect Americans from people who would prey upon them. The average bootlegger sells to scores of people every day. The damage that person is doing is enormous."
The Eighteenth Amendment was passed with good intentions. It had broad support from Christians who longed to turn America into a "no-sin zone", if you will. However, alcohol prohibition produced nothing but disaster. By the early 1930s, alcohol was more abundant and dangerous than ever, crime had skyrocketed. Bootlegging could make you millions. Al Capone virtually owned the city of Chicago, and a good chunk of the Kennedy fortune was amassed by old Papa Joe Kennedy bootlegging that hooch.
As historian George Santayana said, those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. O'Reilly and his ilk have learned nothing from alcohol prohibition. Prohibition doesn't work. It is a great big game of "let's pretend" that produces nightmarish results.
All the bad things drug warriors detest keep happening in spite of the Drug War. Perhaps 100 million Americans have smoked the Devil's Lettuce (i.e. marijuana) at one time or another. We have far harder drugs than we did 30 years ago. The outrageous profits earned by drug dealers -- and hence the huge amounts of money that go to terrorists -- are a direct result of drugs being illegal. And because prohibition has made drug dealing so profitable, there are always people willing to traffic in drugs. Prohibition stopped none of the horrific events O'Reilly recounts in his column.
Drug War fanaticism has led to a quadrupling of our prison population since 1980. (Imagine this: America, "the land of the free", has the highest incarceration rate of any non-communist country.) Why are our prisons so overcrowded and why do rapists and murderers go free? Can you say "War on Drugs"? Last year, the authorities were so busy arresting 730,000 people on drug charges that they apparently had no clue as to what would happen on September 11.
At least there was still enough respect for the Constitution in 1919 to pass an amendment before the government embarked on a new course. Today's drug warriors show reckless disregard for nine of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. They micro-monitor bank transactions, seize assets without due process, impose draconian fines and sentences on non-violent people, routinely kick in doors in "no-knock" raids, and - here is the most damnable aspect of the Drug War - deny medication to suffering and dying people who have exhausted all other avenues of relief.
But won't we solve the problem if we just eradicate the pushers? Because prohibition has made drug dealing so profitable, if you put a pusher in jail and two or three more pop up in his place. Drug dealers prosper because they satisfy demands. Millions of Americans are so morally and spiritually bankrupt that they will do anything for a cheap thrill. There is not one thing that government can do about this.
But won't increased interdiction efforts stop the flow of drugs into the country? Drugs do not magically "flow" into the country. People transport them here because Americans want them. And when you make it tougher to import drugs, Americans turn to "made in America" drugs like methamphetamines. And when the authorities "crack down harder" on meth labs, someone will come up with an even more diabolical drug.
But look at China? They cracked down hard and solved the drug problem. Yeah, and they also "crack down hard" to "solve" the Christianity "problem." If totalitarianism is the price you are willing to pay for a drug-free society, then move to such a country. Given the choice between a free America and a drug-free America, I will choose the former any day. While we are on the subject, solving the drug problem is a totally utopian objective that no government can attain.
But I don't want my kid doing drugs. Well, if you raise your children properly you greatly reduce the chance that they will do drugs. The government cannot raise your children for you. 100 years ago, it was perfectly legal for a ten-year old to walk into the local drug store and buy heroin, and we had nowhere near the problems we have today. Why? Because raising kids was the duty of parents and churches. If you are really serious about keeping your kids off drugs, you have got to look somewhere - anywhere - besides the government.
The Drug War has become a veritable addiction for many of those who support it. While it may make its proponents feel good temporarily, it provides no solution to what is ultimately a moral and spiritual problem. Like so many hard core addicts, drug warriors are never satisfied: they constantly demand that we intensify the thing that makes them feel so good. Their ultimate high -- a drug-free America -- will never come to pass, but they keep pursuing the Drug War anyway. So many Americans have become so accustomed to seeing things through the prism of the Drug War that they cannot imagine life without it. They forget that the solutions lie not in politics, but in the homes and churches of America.
Ranklin Fineo Doosevelt was a lot of bad things. However, he was right on in applauding the end of alcohol prohibition. I do not have the exact quote in front of me, but when the Twenty-First Amendment was ratified, Roosevelt said something to the effect we do not need alcohol control nearly as much as we need self-control. Today, we do not need a national drug control policy nearly as much as we need individual self-control. This is a virtue that no "policy" can instill.
Freely Speaking: Speeches and Essays by Doug Newman
***
-------------------
I'm not. I just happen to believe, as much as I believe anything, that America will not survive drug use or the mentality facilitated by drug use. Take it or leave it.
Great post.
Super-duper bumpty-bump, bump, bump!!
May I also add that 100 years ago, it was perfectly legal for a ten-year old to walk into school with a hunting rifle, but there were no school shootings. Prohibition and zero-tolerance are WORTHLESS!
Both are excuses to justify expanding the size of government. Because of that, neither will ever go away (unless, of course, we sometime reach the point in history where freedom and liberty come to mean more than the acqusition of wealth and power, to the plutocrats, and largess to the People).
Some of the bandit gangs that were formed during Prohibition are still intact and operating.
During prohibition, beer and wine virtually disappeared--there was a bigger markup on the hard stuff.
Several years ago, it was predicted that the Constitution would not survive the War on Drugs and, boy, was that right on!
Conservatives are as eager for a nebulous and never-ending "war on terror" as they are for the WOD. As long as "there's a war on!" there's an excuse to tell dissenters that it's "unpatriotic" to criticize Bush. (NOT!)
The best way to fight drug use is education and health care (i.e., the same way we fight alcoholism). The best way to fight terror is foreign non-intervention. (There's a reason the Swiss have little problem with terrorism.)
Actually, I'm against both prison AND treatment for drug users and sellers. I say just leave people alone who are leaving others alone. If someone commits an actual crime while on drugs,fine, then arrest and prosecute them. But drugs in and of themselves should not be criminal, but they also should not "entitle" anyone to any free treatment.
What you have to say is about as useful as two boils on a butt cheek. Society will never leave drug abusers alone.
Our choice is: prison at one end of the spectrum, nanny government rehab and coddling at the other, with a combination of the two in between.
If my money is going to extorted from me and flushed down the toilet in the direction of these losers, I vote that prison be included in their future.
It's the least they could suffer for inconveniencing the rest of us.
To be sure, part of the problem is a government that would rather subvert the Constitution than use clever means to enforce anti-drug laws while still upholding it. For example, rather than using no-knock raids, I'd suggest another alternative: have a cop go to a suspected drug house and appear, in uniform, asking for information about some crime committed nearby. Allow plenty of time for any drug dealers inside to flush their stash, but don't actually bother to search the place. Repeat a few times. If the drug dealers haven't already been put out of commission by their 'higher-ups' for destroying millions of dollars' worth of product, then on the fifth or sixth time show up with a warrant and serve it. Odds are good the dealers wouldn't bother to destroy their stash, and so it should be easy to find and collect it.
Always great to hear from someone who has simply shrugged his shoulders and conceded that socialism is and will always be the status quo in the U.S.of A
Well guess what! Prison for someone who has not done anything wrong IS nanny state socialism. You are paying to feed, clothe, and house these people, who have not done a damn thing to harm you, me or society. The nanny state is alive and well either way.
You are supposed to be a member of FR to fight for principle, not to concede socialism. Personally, I will fight socialism, not drugs.
Anyone who chooses the "It ought to be illegal because I don't want to pay for the consequesces" argument is a colaborator in the commie takover of America.
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.