Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Do Conservatives Still Love the Drug War?
Campaign for Liberty ^ | 2010-04-02 | Jacob Hornberger

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.


TOPICS: Issues
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; bongbrigade; dopeheadsforpaul; doperforpaul; druggiesunited; drugs; editorial; lping; nannystate; passthebongpaul; tenthamendment; tokers; wantmydope; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 621-626 next last
To: TN4Liberty
No, I do not believe people are held sufficiently accountable for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions, but I find the parallels to alcohol prohibition convincing, but I can accept that others don't. Unfortunately.
201 posted on 04/04/2010 3:47:23 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The naked casuistry of the high priests of Warmism would make a Jesuit blush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
The commerce clause -- as was held by the US Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich.

Do you believe in the "living document" theory of Constitutional interpretation?

If not, can you show me anything that would support that decision as being within the original intent of the commmerce clause?

202 posted on 04/04/2010 3:50:47 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
I agree. One of my good friends was raised by a couple regular pot smokers. She was never physically abused and she always had a roof over her head and clothes to wear. But the problem she had with her parents' habit is the fact that they just "didn't care." They were not motivated by anything and they really couldn't be bothered to care what she did.

Amazingly enough, she had a good head on her shoulders and finished high school. She put herself through college and and now her parents accuse her of thinking she's too good for them. rofl

203 posted on 04/04/2010 3:56:59 PM PDT by TNdandelion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7

“Well, this statement was certainly not well thought-out. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of offenses that are non-violent but have a direct negative impact on either society as a whole or an individual.”

Name one that does not involve government force. The individual’s life is his own, not societies, and certainly not yours.

Hank


204 posted on 04/04/2010 3:58:44 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
Prostitution is non-violent and does not involve the "initiation of force," but you would be hard-pressed to sell that as not negatively impacting society.

Legalized prostitution would probably help society be decreasing certain street crimes and allowing cops to go after real crime with real victims.

Prostitution as a willing deal between consenting shouldn't be illegal.

Bribery, likely falling under the umbrella of financial crimes, is also relatively "victimless" yet negatively impacts society.

Bribery cheats someone or gives unfair preferential treatment to someone so yes, there is an unwilling victim in this.

Part of your problem is that you don't understand 'initiating force' in its contextual meaning and that 'without defrauding others' should also go with it.

Vices involving consenting adults (drinking, smoking gambling, sex, reading or watching erotica, etc.) may not be activities that are productive and useful to the population at large but are not activities that should be outlawed by government any more than gluttony or sloth should be.

205 posted on 04/04/2010 4:01:17 PM PDT by Eagle Eye (The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
The commerce clause -- as was held by the US Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich.

Do you also feel that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to force people to buy health insurance?

206 posted on 04/04/2010 4:05:21 PM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

“If drugs, why not prostitution, or pornography or bestiality or what ever. After that, why not rape ...”

You don’t see any difference? May you learn it in your own skin. If you do not know the difference between individuals living their lives as they choose, but not interfering in anyone else’s life, and those who do interfere in other’s lives, you deserve neither freedom or safety. You are the problem with America, because you are the one that will interfere in other innocent people’s lives. It was from people like you that individual rights needed to be protected and this country’s government was formed.

Hank


207 posted on 04/04/2010 5:19:48 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jnsun

And there is no clearer, sicker call for the evils of ever bigger government than your twisted rationale for sticking government’s nose where it has no legitimate or Constitutional authority to be.

On the other hand, the drug-addicted do present a fertile field for families, churches and other PRIVATE organizations to minister. The SOLE place for government is at the local level, dealing with someone’s PUBLIC behaviors.


208 posted on 04/04/2010 5:26:37 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub. III OK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

I’m not that much older than you, and I actually lived a pretty sheltered life as a kid. People just seem to tell me more about their problems, sometimes just to shock me, but I don’t shock easily anymore.

The kid that got the MRSA is the son of a teacher, his mother is a speech therapist, nicest, Christian people you could ever hope to meet, just not that smart. The heroin/oxy addict that got pneumonia and was suicidal, is also the son of college educated people, very liberal drug users, themselves. Some of the schools in my county are also full of former hippie druggies. The principal at one school had a cocaine problem, but thank goodness, he got promoted to a job with the state dept of education. The guy who spent his adult life in and out of mental institutions was my friend’s brother. He always put her down as his closest relative. Drugs destroy lives.


209 posted on 04/04/2010 5:32:00 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR
Your vitriol against Dr. / Rep. Paul is nothing short of the bitterness that is spewed out by the progressives over @ MSNBC, DailyKos & DU. Typical PaulHater BS.

No it is not.

I have zero "Hatred" for Ron Paultard on a personal level.

But I will not brook his contention that simply using the weapons at hand to clear out trenches in combat (Instead of dismounting from their armored vehicles and duking it out with trench knives perhaps?) was tantamount to crimes against humanity. I believe that makes him wholy unfit to ever be Commander In Chief. And I will point that out to any who consider him for that office, and yes, I will ridicule the judgement of such people, and point out that their patriotism is so nonexistant as to be not even something that they can contend to having in a debate.

I will also point out that you tried to circumvent whether or not his contention was okay, and jumped right in to an ad hominem trying to conflate my positions with those of the leftist kook sites.

I stated why I oppose Paul and posted the link to where any who choose can read him outline his position in his own words. You have refused to address the substance of that. Do you lack the intellect to do so? If not, give it your best shot. Explain to all here how those troops should have halted in the midst of battle so the poor scared little enemy soldiers (who could have surrendered before the engagement began as thousands of their compatriates later did) could have another chsance. That is the issue. That is the ONLY issue.

Be honest enough to address the actual issue I brought up instead of trying to brand those who bring up things inconvenient to you with a "Hater" label, and stop trying to make my position something else.

210 posted on 04/04/2010 5:37:13 PM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
And that's the thing... Alcohol has a terrible cost to society as well. Some would say, "Why introduce another version of alcohol?" I think it is a valid question, one that needs answering if you want to be persuasive. I can be convinced, but I need to be convinced. I think there are a lot like me. Is there, for example, some sort of analysis that shows the injury to disinterested third parties from illegal drug use (including the war on drugs) is greater than the injury to third parties from alcohol (assuming that would be a surrogate for future legal drug use). That might be a persuasive argument, or at least a step in that direction.

That said, I think the illegality of prostitution is a much harder thing to defend. It is literally a contract between two people with no apparent injury to uninterested third parties. It really is an example of how some want to run the lives of others. So I'm not rejecting your position out of hand. But I need to be convinced.

211 posted on 04/04/2010 5:37:46 PM PDT by TN4Liberty (My tagline disappeared so this is my new one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

I already did that. You should do a bit more reading before responding.


212 posted on 04/04/2010 5:46:38 PM PDT by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The declaration of war allows more money to be siphoned into the campaign, and it allows people in power to wield more unregulated power.


213 posted on 04/04/2010 5:47:53 PM PDT by bannie (Somebody has to go to seed...it might as well be me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

There was no context for the use of “initiation of force” for me to understand, so I take it literally. Force implies some physical element, and for you to state otherwise is nothing more than apologism for the author of this piece. He didn’t include a phrase like “without infringing upon the rights of others” or “without harming others, physically or otherwise.” He said what he said. You’ve admitted as much by stating that “without defrauding others” should go with it (among other things, if you ask me).

As to your last paragraph, I made no comment about that. If you do agree with that line of thinking, though, you should not be making a statement like the author did.


214 posted on 04/04/2010 5:50:42 PM PDT by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
I have zero "Hatred" for Ron Paultard on a personal level.

Then prove it by renouncing your insults of the guy. I think you contradicted yourself in the above sentence, too. The acidic comments you used against Rep. Paul as just like the hateful ones that were made about President Bush @ the websites I mentioned -- different peoson, same attitude.

215 posted on 04/04/2010 5:54:41 PM PDT by ChrisInAR (Alright, tighten your shorts, Pilgrim, & sing like the Duke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7

“I already did that. You should do a bit more reading before responding.”

Typical of those who live to tell other people how to live their lives. You should keep pigs.

Hank


216 posted on 04/04/2010 5:54:45 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

Are you even responding to my posts? I’m a bit concerned now you’re simply responding to the wrong person. You clearly have neither read nor comprehended anything I posted, so I’m hesitant to keep talking with you.


217 posted on 04/04/2010 5:56:38 PM PDT by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7

My response was to this:

“Well, this statement was certainly not well thought-out. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of offenses that are non-violent but have a direct negative impact on either society as a whole or an individual.”

To that I responded:

“Name one that does not involve government force. The individual’s life is his own, not societies, and certainly not yours.”

Since then, you have not supplied one example for me. Perhaps you have posted to someone else, but I have seen nothing. Sorry.

Hank


218 posted on 04/04/2010 6:05:01 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/rlc/2486439/posts?page=176#176


219 posted on 04/04/2010 6:07:56 PM PDT by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR

Still dare not address his position, or whether that should disqualify one from the presidency?

Maybe YOU brought up the Daily Kos because you spend a lot of time there. Maybe you think our troops really should just get out and offer flowers in the midst of battle.
Maybe you like Paul because you hate those who defend the United States in battle.

This is a conservative site, and trying to avoid the substance of a debat and whine “Hater! Ooh ooh! Hater!” instead of addressing what another posts is not going to fly.


220 posted on 04/04/2010 6:12:29 PM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 621-626 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson