Are Conservatives Addicted to the Drug War?

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.

If my money is going to extorted from me and flushed down the toilet

Do yourself a favor and put at least half the energy you put into bashing drugs and drug users into bashing taxes and the IRS, and you might gain some credibility.

Too bad the government won't keep volatile and dangerous drugs like RU-486 off the market like they do recreational drugs, but they are going to go ahead an shove it down our throats beginning in California. Apparently it is okay to starve your unborn baby to death and perhaps kill yourself in the process with RU-486, but not okay to kill yourself by catching a buzz. So much for consistancy.

It's the least they could suffer for inconveniencing the rest of us.

Lock up anyone who doesnt wear a seatbelt while riding in a car because I might have to support them if they become a vegetable.

Lock up anyone who doesnt wear a helmet while riding a bike because I might have to support them if they become a vegetable.

Lock up anyone who doesnt wear a blabla while riding a blabla because I might have to support them if they become a vegetable.

Hey Kevin, by all means, keep bashing the red herring, and not the real problem.

No, not really. Governor Huckabee of my State for one has suggested that the nation needs to have a long hard look at alternative ideas. He is a former Baptist Minister, played for the Freepers with his band, and is certainly a Conservative. He's correct that we need to take a long hard look.

I don't believe that Conservatives are really in favor of locking up so many addicted citizens so there is no room left for violent criminals. I don't believe that Conservatives are really in favor of seizing people's property without being able to arrest them and forcing them to prove that their property is "innocent". Can't and don't believe that.

While I cannot argue the merits of whether THC levels have increased since the 60's or 70's, I would argue that todays' pot is not any better than yesterdays' pot.
Fact is, my observances are that todays' pot sucks.
I haven't had a good high since 1981, and the ocassional hits I have had since that time were useless.
People tell me they have this really great shit, try it, they paid $125 for 1/4 oz., and it does nothing.

We used to go out and harvest our own, in Kentucky and Missouri, and a couple of hits would give you halucigenetic flashes.
It's been 20 years now, and I have seen nothing like that, and besides, it's way too expensive.
Supposed THC levels aside, today's stuff wouldn't get a fly high.

"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 never has had a clue about the underlying causes of the drug problem and the failed WOD, and probably never will.

" it provides no solution to what is ultimately a moral and spiritual problem. "

And this, IMHO, is the crux of the problem, which as the article points out, will never be solved by a prohibition mentality.

Hey, let's "decriminalize" drugs.
Then we can have a great country like the Netherlands and great cities like Amsterdam.
Plus, we won't have our prisons bursting at the seams with young people who happened to get caught with a joint or two, blah blah blah.

Supposed THC levels aside, today's stuff wouldn't get a fly high.

Today's pot, mostly grown in the Carolinas, from what I have heard, could make a cup of coffee nervous. It's often a jittery, somewhat uncomfortable high. No comparison to the Panama Red, and the Acapulco Gold, and the Lebanese hash, and the good ole fashioned Thai stick we grew up with in the late '60s early '70s. Of course, I gave it up long ago, but this is what I hear.

ADDICTED TO THE DRUG WAR

99% of Conservatives and every other American give the WOD about 5 minutes a year worth of attention. The other 1% are just pissed that they have to get stoned in the dark. Mileage may vary.

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.

You forgot to include government dispensing of heroin to hordes of zombie losers wandering around in superior, more enlightened countries like Norway, Sweden, and Netherlands. Some people apparently think America should be just like those countries.

Users will use whether or not they're legal, so why rip up the Bill of Rights - specifically, the 4th and 9 Amendments - just to satisfy the puritanical instincts of drug warriors? Prohibition of alcohol failed miserably, and the prohibition of other drugs is doing the same death dance.

Excuse me but that is just sophistry of the first order.

When anyone says anything in opposition to the Drug War, they spaz out as if they were tripping on Angel Dust.

The author must be reading FreeRepublic.

Perhaps if you become an innocent victim of this stupid war - I already outlined a few instances where total innocents get hurt (or killed) - then you'd be able to see things more clearly.

I have a better chance of winning the lottery or being killed by a transsexual dwarf on the 3rd Tuesday of April 2010, than becoming an "innocent victim" of the WOD. As I said, the WOD is not even on the radar screen of the American people, conservative or not, beyond calling the cops when some damn doper and his main man are conducting "business" in front of their houses.

Eliminate the WOD and the welfare STATE. Let business provide rehab and health services to people that chose to get off drugs.

Kevin Curry wrote: 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.

southern rock wrote: 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

Here's a great quote from another WOD thread:

"The real irony is that you jokers think that a 'Free Republic' can best be restored and preserved by eliminating the 'Free' part." -- headsonpikes 738

I have a better chance of winning the lottery or being killed by a transsexual dwarf on the 3rd Tuesday of April 2010, than becoming an "innocent victim" of the WOD.

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.