Listen to the Event in Real Audio (Audio Only)Posted on 01/05/2003 9:19:17 PM PST by AdamSelene235
Excellent speech by Ex-Drug Warrior Sheriff Bill Masters.
Sheriff Bill Masters is a veteran of the "Drug War." He was so good at it that he won an award from the Drug Enforcement Agency. As the years passed, however, Masters began to harbor misgivings about the drug war. A few years ago, Masters came to the conclusion that the drug war is itself an addiction —and that drug prohibition is more damaging to the fabric of American society than drugs could ever be. Masters has served as sheriff of San Miguel County, Colorado, since 1979 and has become America's first sheriff affiliated with the Libertarian Party. In his new book, Masters advocates a return to the basic principles of personal responsibility, simple laws, and limited government.
Watch the Event in Real VideoListen to the Event in Real Audio (Audio Only)
But the war is unconstitutional at the federal level and, ironically, one of the best arguments I can find against it is the war itself.
I don't know what would be worse, the drugs or the government expansion to stop them.
I am concerned about the federal expansion and the general constitutionality of the WOD. That's it.
My observation, and if this was a "debate" between Sheriff Masters (in favor of reforming drug policies) and Mr. Otis (in favor of status quo), just in terms of the discourse, Sheriff Masters won the debate hands down. Mr. Otis made a valid point about raising the question of increased drug usage with legalization, a similar phenomena that occurred when alcohol prohibition ended 70 years ago. However, when pressed on the issue, he offered no suggestions for testing or analyzing his question (his attitude seemed to be that we will never know, so we could never take the risk of changing the policies/laws). Furthermore, he was fairly loose with some basic facts about drug prohibition in this country and seems to believe that America's involvement with drugs and America's "drug problems" are the result of the social upheaval during the 1960s. Mr. Otis ignores a large part of history of drug prohibition in this country, even though the 1960s certainly brought drug use to the forefront of American popular culture. Mr. Otis also had his facts wrong with regard to the legal status of heroin in the UK and its impact on the number of addicts in that country. He incorrectly said that the UK legalized heroin in the 1960s when only 64 addicts were reported to live in that country, yet today there are 33,000 heroin addicts living in the UK. Otis omits the fact that the US pressured the UK to change its policy in the 1970s, so heroin was only legal for a limited time, and most reporting of this history in the UK indicates that conditions in the UK were better during the period heroin was legally obtainable. Of course, these interpretations of the situation in the UK are debatable, but the point is, Mr. Otis does not appear to be as well-informed about drug issues as does Sheriff Masters, so his arguments to people who are knowledgable about the history of drug prohibition are not likely to be very persuasive.
Mr. Otis' main point was that with drug legalization comes a set of costs that he does not think our society should bear. First, is the cost of increased drug use among a marginal group. Second, Mr. Otis expressed concern that drug legalization in the name of liberty would come with a paternalistic response from the government and we would all end up paying for social programs to hospitalize and care for victims of drug use who will be in a coma for 30 years. Finally, Mr. Otis appeals to the traditional conservative position that drug use is simply self-indulgent, has no remedial benefit to users, is a slight harm at its best, and a killer and destroyer of lives at its worst. His utilitatarian and moral arguments certainly will sway many people to continue with the drug wars, but unless he arms himself with a better set of facts, his position will become untenable.
Sheriff Masters main point was that we need to question what kind of society it is in which we want to live. He got to respond to Mr. Otis contention that legalization would feed the socialist state and said that we should not try to do things like they do in other countries. He suggests that the country needs to prosper and grow with the freedom of individuals, and that if we are willing to embrace socialism for the basis of drug enforcement, then we might as well drug test every American, every morning for drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and make sure they don't eat double cheeseburgers.
The bottom line is that Mr. Otis believes the law is useful for not only remediation of crimes, but that the law is supposed to prevent crimes themselves. Sheriff Masters, on the other hand, believes that law enforcement resources are limited, and we should, as a society, concentrate on the truly heinous crimes like child abductions, serial killings, murders and robberies. Sheriff Masters believes people should be left alone where it comes to their personal preferences on what people choose to put in their bodies, but where it comes to their behavior they should be judged harshly when they harm others.
The most interesting aspect of this CATO sponsored debate on reform of the drug wars was how the discussion of socialism entered the fray. What is interesting is that the drug warriors use the threat of an ensuing socialism in the form of medical coverage for drug addicts to support the status quo. Mr. Otis supports the idea that the justice system can and does change people's behavior and in so doing, works to prevent crimes. But don't we call it a "justice" system because it is where we judge people and punish them after the fact? (Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.) Most people are not criminals, but the more laws we make, the more criminals we make. Sure, many people will change their behavior to avoid the nuisance or downright wrath of the state. However, the idea that laws change people's behavior is really the basis of the socialist state itself - hence we are a society now overwhelmed with petty tyrants enforcing seatbelt laws, no-smoking ordinances, drug laws, and a host of other rules and regulations governing our everyday existance. We already are largely a socialist country, so it is no surprise that the government would respond to drug legalization with paternalistic statism, it is just ironic that a paternalistic statist (i.e., Mr. Otis) would threaten us with more of the same he and his ilk have been dishing out to the country for decades.
Ah, more of the sleazy ad hominems that are the Drug Warriors' stock in trade.
Jimer digs deeper into the Drug Warrior arsenal and deploys weapon #2: content-free jibes.
Mocking the stupidities and dishonesties of Drug Warriors is how I chill out; thanks for giving me such ample opportunities.
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.