Posted on 04/04/2010 6:51:11 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
An article by a conservative named Cliff Kincaid, who serves as editor of the Accuracy in Media (AIM) Report, provides a perfect example of how different libertarians are from conservatives and, well, for that matter, how there ain't a dime's worth of difference, when it comes to individual freedom, between conservatives and liberals.
The article concerns the drug war and is entitled, "Dopey Conservatives for Dope." Ardently defending the continuation of the drug war, despite some 35 years of manifest failure, Kincaid takes fellow conservatives to task who are finally joining libertarians in calling for an end to the drug war. He specifically mentions columnist Steve Chapman, whose article "In the Drug War, Drugs are Winning," which was posted on the website of the conservative website Townhall.com, was apparently what set Kincaid off.
Chapman made the point that it is the illegality of drugs that has produced the drug gangs and cartels, along with all the violence that has come with them. The reason that such gangs and cartels fear legalization is that they know that legalization would put them out of business immediately.
Consider alcohol. Today, there are thousands of liquor suppliers selling alcohol to consumers notwithstanding the fact that liquor might be considered harmful to people. They have aggressive advertising and marketing campaigns and are doing their best to maximize profits by providing a product that consumers wish to buy. Their competitive efforts to expand market share are entirely peaceful.
Now, suppose liquor production or distribution was made a federal felony offense, just like drug production or distribution. At that point, all the established liquor businesses would go out of business.
However, prohibition wouldn't mean that liquor would cease being produced or distributed. It would simply mean that a new type of supplier would immediately enter the black (i.e., illegal) market to fill the void. Those suppliers would be similar in nature to the current suppliers in the drug business or, say, Al Capone -- that is, unsavory people who have no reservations about resorting to violence, such as murdering competitors and killing law-enforcement officers, to expand market share.
At that point, the only way to put these Al Capone-type of people out of business would be by legalizing booze. Once prohibition of alcohol was ended, the violent liquor gangs would immediately go out of business and legitimate businesses would return to the liquor market. The same holds true for drug prohibition.
The big objection to the drug war, however, is not its manifest failure and destructiveness but rather its fundamental assault on individual freedom. If a person isn't free to ingest any substance he wants, then how can he possibly be considered free?
Yet, for decades Kincaid and most other conservatives and most liberals have taken the audacious position that the state should wield the power to punish a person for doing bad things to himself. In fact, the drug war reflects perfectly the nanny-state mindset that has long afflicted both conservatives and liberals. They feel that the state should be a nanny for American adults, treating them like little children, sending them to their jail cell when they put bad things in their mouths.
Kincaid justifies his statism by saying that drugs are bad for people. Even if that's true -- and people should be free to decide that for themselves, as they do with liquor -- so what? Why should that be any business of the state? If I wish to do bad things to myself, why should the likes of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, and John McCain wield the power to put me into jail for that?
Quite simply, Kincaid: It ain't any of your business or anyone else's business what I ingest, whether it's booze, drugs, candy, or anything else. I am not a drone in your collective bee hive. I am an individual with the natural, God-given right to live my life any way I choose, so long as my conduct doesn't involve the initiation of force against others.
For decades, conservatives and liberals have been using the drug war as an excuse to assault freedom, free enterprise, privacy, private property, civil liberties, and the Constitution. They have brought nothing but death, violence, destruction, and misery with their 35-year old failed war on drugs. There would be no better place to start dismantling the statism that afflicts our land than by ending the drug war.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
There is no constitutional exemption for drugs in the commerce clause. If there needs to be, we can talk about getting one, but until there is the constituionality of the drug war has to be measured by what is in the Constituion, not what we think about drugs.
How many people are killed by DUI accidents? How many families are destroyed by alcoholics? That is my point - the nature of the problem changes with legalization.
Let me ask this... if CA passes the measure to legalize marijuana, should it be able to enact such a program under the Tenth Amendment; or do you think the Commerce Clause authorizes fedgov to shut it down?
I don't see SCOTUS limiting federal regulation on activities that involve both commerce and interstate movement any time soon - it has little to do with the drug war. Do you honestly see that, when the most originalist member of SCOTUS isn't going there?
That is a false statement based on no facts at all.
First, they are separate issues, fix the entitlement programs, don't steal liberty from citizens.
But if you are upset at the burden to society from entitlements, then stop fighting to preserve the status quo!
It is your WoD that has the burden to society as you say...and even then you are wrong for there are a great deal of high performing users and even addicts in society that do not burden society at all.
Rush Limbaugh's only burden to society on his drug abuse was the time it took in silly ass court cases.
Should vices be criminalized?
Making a vice illegal or taxing it excessively only invites abuse and the criminal element, ie, government corruption.
I don't see what any particular contemporary court might or might not do being a measure of the original intent of the Constitution. At this point exactly where Clarence Thomas has or hasn't gone with respect to the question seems to be mostly speculation based on two word you picked out of a decision and extrapolated to your satisfaction.
And because of that the government should criminalize it just like theft or murder?
Can't you say the same about alcohol abuse? But do you really want to get into the comparisons of alcohol and pot?
What good to society does cigarette smoking bring? But why should government criminalize it?
And if it is so terrible why should government profit off of something it considers immoral?
Drug Warriors tend to have a very difficult time keeping a consistent argument considering that at one point alcohol will illegal and pot was legal!
You also seem oblivious to the great many high level users, and no, I am not condoning their use or their abuse but why should the government interfere with Betty Ford, Brett Favre, Rush Limbaugh, or Whitney Houston who have all had some sort of substance abuse problems.
The Court decided that even if Filburn's wheat never crossed state lines--indeed, never even left his farm--he was engaged in interstate commerce. Home-grown and consumed wheat, at the time, appears to have been a significant part of the national wheat crop, and the Court argued that Filburn's "own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial."7
If you don't see how broadly this defines interstate commerce, consider the well that I just had drilled for my new house. As a result of having my own very pure water supply, I will probably reduce my purchases of Brita water filters and bottled water. To the extent that I have withdrawn my purchases from the interstate market for these goods, my decision to drill a well has affected interstate commerce. If Congress wanted to regulate my decision to drill a well in southern Idaho based on the "interstate commerce" clause, it would make just as much sense as the decision involving Filburn's wheat, grown on his own farm, ground into flour, and baked into bread for his own consumption.
In the last few years, the Supreme Court has taken a new look at this broad notion of interstate commerce. In U.S. v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court struck down a conviction under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 because the carrying of a gun to school did not "substantially affect" interstate commerce.8 Similarly, the Court struck down a federal law that allowed for civil suits for violence against women, arguing that the violent crimes in question did not "substantially affect" interstate commerce.9 This insistence that the Commerce clause means something is good; I've seen gun control advocates argue that the federal government has the authority to completely prohibit possession of handguns, on the theory that the metals used to make them, or the ore from which that metal was smelted, or the coal used to smelt that ore, must, at some point, have crossed state lines.
Now, back to Gonzales v. Raich, the medical marijuana case. We ended up with an interesting split: six justices agreed that the federal marijuana law applies to the defendants--because the defendants' personal growing and use of marijuana, entirely within California, affects interstate commerce. Interestingly enough, it was the five most liberal members of the Court, plus Justice Scalia, who took this position--and dashed the hopes of potheads across America. Justices O'Connor, Thomas, and Rehnquist wrote dissenting opinions, of which Justice Thomas's opening paragraph really captures the absurdity of this reading of the commerce clause: "Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers." As I said at the beginning of this essay, you don't have to be interested in the question of marijuana to be concerned about this decision. The liberal wing of the Court looked at where following Lopez and Morrison would take future decisions about the commerce clause--and recognized that an astonishing amount of federal regulation would almost certainly fall, if the federal government lost this case. It would unleash a storm of suits challenging whether the federal laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations, protecting the environment--and many of the gun control laws--really were constitutional under the commerce clause.
Certainly, many of these laws would still be applicable. The Atlanta motel that refused to rent to blacks, and was the case that upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was clearly engaged in interstate commerce. It advertised in national magazines, and three-quarters of its business was from out of state.10 There might be legitimate argument, however, about whether some much more local businesses that discriminate are actually engaged in interstate commerce. Of more interest to gun owners, what about someone who makes a machine gun from scratch, and does not sell it? Does his action "substantially affect" interstate commerce? You can see why the left wing of the Court had no choice but to uphold the federal government's authority to punish sick people growing and using marijuana for personal use. Watch carefully how the Supreme Court handles not only your rights, but also how it handles larger issues of the limits of governmental power. It may not be your ox being gored this month, but overreaching power seldom stops with the death of one animal.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/DrugsGunsAndMoney.htm
There are laws on the books already that deal w/ the irresponsible use of alcohol (DUI, public intox, selling to children, etc.), & NONE of us who advotcate the re-legalization of marijuana believe that those laws should be changed.
As a matter of fact, this pot-smoking advocate believes that the laws for DUI should be strengthened, & include the death penalty if an innocent person is killed by a DUI driver....but that's just me.
So typical of the statist style of debate is to assume that anyone who wants to change a law does so for personal enjoyment....ie accuse the person of either being a druggie or wanting to be a druggie.
Maybe you should look into the concept of advocating freedom for others just for the sake of expanding freedoms!
Felons should vote once their sentences are completed. Why? Because I'm a felon? Heck no, because it is the right thing!
Do I personally gain from eliminating the WoD? No, if I wanted to smoke pot I could now. If I wanted to use meth or cocaine I could now, just the same as if I want to abuse bourbon or beer.
The WoD corrupts our legal system. The WoD takes away liberties and reduces freedoms.
Any horrors you describe regarding drug use or drug abuse are horrors that exist under the system you want to preserve, which means that you enjoy those horrors and are opposed to change.
Bet you never really thought of it like that but that is the way it is.
Notably, in susceptible individuals, even a few month’s of marijuana use carries with it a substantial risk of triggering lifelong schizophrenia and other mental disorders. The pro-drug lobby has little regard for contrary evidence.
Thank you for your replies.
The American model of government is based on republican not democratic principles. Hence a referendum is not available on a nationwide basis. A pro-drug referendum vote by California would not prevail against federal anti-drug laws but would cause substantial enforcement problems. My surmise is that within five years California would become a narcostate and a prime example of the harms of drug legalization.
Can you tell us which enumerated power then authorizes the federal government to institute a ban on marijuana based on that information?
I am simply countering the argument about beer drinkers not breaking into homes - that cuts both ways, and akin to you said, breaking into a house is also illegal now. And I do agree that pot should be at least decriminalized if not legalized, my disagreement is with legalizing hard drugs.
I doubt the Obama Admin would react, but that's just a guess in response to their reaction to medical marijuana - ever since they said they wouldn't crack down on medical marijuana, the growth of such has exploded in states such as Colorado. Plus, they probably would like the tax revenues going to their pet state California to keep the unions propped up there.
I agree w/ you completely. I never liked the initiative process, & would love to see the CA Assembly re-legalize marijuana instead. But hey, I'll take what I can get!
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.