War on Drugs - Gov't Overstepping its Bounds?

23 August 02 | Schmedlap

[Mike4Freedom]

You got no answer from R-man because he has no answers. -- He really does NOT believe in the individual liberties guaranteed by our constitution. -- His agenda is big government & more control.

I suppose that you are correct. That type of conservative does not believe in individual freedom, they just believe in their verison of big mama government running everything. They are just as statist as the liberals. They believe that if they ran everything, all would be sweetness and light.

Lesson not learned: Freedom is something that you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to the other guy as well.

[Ken H]

IMO, the Federal government is overstepping its bounds in the drug war, as well as other domestic policies.

The Tenth Amendment is quite clear that States are to exercise powers that are not delegated to the Federal government.

State governments should deal with education, welfare policies, violent crime, and vices.

That's the way it was when the Founding Fathers ratified the Constitution, and remained so during their lifetimes.

One of the missions of Free Republic is to start moving the country in that direction.

[justlurking]

They are just as statist as the liberals.

No, Mike. Don't say that. As JimRob has posted on this subject (but I can't find it right now), calling a supporter of the War on Some Drugs a "statist" is just as inflammatory as someone calling an opponent of the War on Some Drugs a "druggie". It doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.

Many people, both liberal and conservative, find it more convenient to have the government enforce their moral code on other people, rather than convincing those other people to voluntarily adopt it. But, at the same time, they expect the government to protect whatever set of rights or freedoms that they deem important.

Neither really want a big government and more control: they only want it to be just big enough to do the things they want it to do. However, they don't realize that government generally does not shrink without a revolution: it just keeps growing. It's not a dark conspiracy -- it's just human nature. Governments are composed of humans, so why should we expect it to be any different?

And therein lies the problem. When government restricts the freedom of one group of people that wouldn't otherwise be violating the rights of anyone, it simply provides the precedent to do the same for another group of people. And inevitably, it happens because no one has the courage to stand up and say that even though I think this behavior is irresponsible or immoral, we should leave them alone unless they are hurting someone other than themselves.

[M.K. Borders]

I would only add that though I have never used drugs, nor would I associate with someone who does. I am willing to support the de-criminalization of such acts,
But ONLY under the following conditions:
*No welfare, or unemployment compensation to those whose drug use makes them unemployable.
*Blind adoptions for the children of drug addicts who cannot care for their families.
* No Medi-care benifits for those with drug related health problems.

I will support the war on drugs so long as I am the one expected to pay the bills of the losers who engage in such behavior.

[justlurking]

Actually, I think you have hit on the one of the real problems.

The War on Some Drugs is justified by many people because of these issues: the costs of cleaning up after the people that poison themselves.

Prosecution of the WoSD has escalated along with the growth of the welfare state. Does anyone really think it's coincidental? I'm beginning to wonder if "Big Mother" is the real threat to our freedom, rather than "Big Brother".

But, I'll add a few conditions to your list:

1. Anyone that harms another while under the influence of a drug will be prosecuted as if they committed the act intentionally. If someone is killed by a drunk driver, the drunk driver is prosecuted for murder.

2. Anyone that sells drugs to a minor is prosecuted for a felony.

3. I'm willing to relent one time for someone that needs medical help to kick an addiction. But only once, and only if the care is administered by a private organization and payment is structured so they have no incentive to prolong the treatment.

4. And finally, users of currently legal drugs (caffeine, nicotine, alcohol) are subject to the same provisions.

This is an interesting tangent on the subject: anyone else have preconditions for decriminalization?

[dcwusmc]

I think you and MKB have come up with a reasonable set of circumstances. I'd be willing to have those conditions set as precursors to decriminalising drugs and getting rid of the rest of the unconstitutional war on Americans...

[Schmedlap]

I don't understand why we need pre-conditions for the government to stop trampling on people's rights.

[justlurking]

I don't understand why we need pre-conditions for the government to stop trampling on people's rights.

One of the biggest complaints I hear from proponents of the War on Some Drugs is the health-care costs attributable to substance abusers. It's a valid concern: consider how much abuse of alcohol and nicotine is costing Medicare.

But, they are inextricably linked. The government's involvement in health care is why the government feels they have the power to tell you what is and isn't healthy for you. And, the voters support that view, especially for behavior they don't approve.

We have already had the war on the cigarette manufacturers. They lost (or rather, the smokers did). The CDC tried to use the same approach on guns, treating it as a "public health" problem. They got slapped down by Congress, but that hasn't kept them from trying again. We have already heard the first shots fired in the War on Fast Food.

I believe that the government's involvement in health care is also trampling on freedom. By low-balling how much they will pay for a procedure or treatment, it inflates the cost for the rest of us (to make up the difference). And of course, there are the taxes extracted from us to pay for it.

So, it's an interesting negotation point: what if we were to deny tax-funded medical treatment for illness and injuries caused by substance abuse? That takes that issue off the table, and it's usually a smokescreen anyway.

[M.K. Borders]

"And therein lies the problem. When government restricts the freedom of one group of people that wouldn't otherwise be violating the rights of anyone, it simply provides the precedent to do the same for another group of people. And inevitably, it happens because no one has the courage to stand up and say that even though I think this behavior is irresponsible or immoral, we should leave them alone unless they are hurting someone other than themselves.

I am reminded of the old saying here;" A goverment big enough to give what you want, is big enough to take from you what it wants."

[M.K. Borders]

I don't understand why we need pre-conditions for the government to stop trampling on people's rights.

I will support the war on drugs so long as I am the one expected to pay the bills of the losers who engage in such behavior.

I really don't think I could give a clearer answer. The use of drugs by these folks affects ME. I have to pay the bills in the form of higher taxs. Therefore drug use under todays conditions does NOT stop at a persons front door. So long as it affects me against MY will, then I see no constitutional protection.

Pull the social safety net I am compelled to support, then we will talk about the user's "rights".

[M.K. Borders]

And another thing (RANT ALERT); These very same dope smoking, maggot infested, hippies of the 60's and 70's, are the same folks who cried and whined for the Great Society protections they have now!
Boy! talk about having it both ways. Demand free health care, higher unemployment, and then demand to be allowed to trash their health and make themselves unemployable.

GOD!, when will my generation grow up?

[M.K. Borders]

(END RANT)
Thank you. :)

[Ken H]

"Talk about having it both ways. Demand free health care, higher unemployment and then be allowed to trash their health and make themselves unemployable.

Does that apply to alcohol and tobacco as well?

[M.K. Borders]

It applies to all who would behave irresponsibly.

[Ken H]

It applies to all who behave irresponsibly.

What I'm getting at is whether alcohol and tobacco should be banned until the welfare state is dismantled.

[Schmedlap]

When I wrote, “I don’t understand why we need pre-conditions for the government to stop trampling on people’s rights,” I was speaking in terms of general principles, not justification of ad hoc legislation.

Posted by M.K. Borders:
“I will support the war on drugs so long as I am the one expected to pay the bills of the losers who engage in such behavior....I really don't think I could give a clearer answer.”

One way to give a clearer answer is to lay out your principles in a way that can be applied to all situations, rather than one specific situation. Focusing on principles, rather than ad hoc laws, allows us to better understand each other’s principles – and to understand and refine our own principles.

Please tell me if I understand you:
Group A = illegal drug users
G = government
X = health care expenses from illegal drug use
D = illegal drug use

Group A engages in activity D.
Activity D results in X expenses.
G violates your rights, by coercing you to pay for X.
G violates the rights of Group A, to reduce activity D.
Reduction in activity D results in a reduction of X.
So long as G coerces you to pay for X, a decrease in X equates to a decrease in the frequency with which your rights are violated.
Your rights are more important than the rights of Group A.
If G coerces you to pay X, then it is acceptable that G continues to violate rights of Group A, because this results in less violation of your rights at the hands of G.

[M.K. Borders]

So long as G coerces you to pay for X, a decrease in X equates to a decrease in the frequency with which your rights are violated. Your rights are more important than the rights of Group A. If G coerces you to pay X, then it is acceptable that G continues to violate rights of Group A, because this results in less violation of your rights at the hands of G.

A Valid aurgument.
However, I would counter by saying that many of the people who are using drugs are also the ones pushing for, and voting for our current social safegaurds.
I strongly suspect that the vast majority of drug users in this country would never accept total responsibility for their actions (ie, living without unemployment or medi-cade/care safegaurds), as a just trade for the freedom to excercise their habits.

Because the debate is always about what is owed the drug-user through the Constitution, and never about what the drug-user owes me the tax-payer, I cannot accept that the aurgument is simply one person's rights over another.

[M.K. Borders]

What I'm getting at is whether alcohol and tobacco should be banned until the welfare state is dismantled

My pet-peeve in this area is intoxication, which is by it's nature a health hazard, and a destructive life-style. Tobacco and Alcohol can be enjoyed in moderation. Thousands of people do just that.
The purpose of drugs however is to intoxicate. There is simply no other reason to take them. Intoxication by any means is and should be illegal.

[Schmedlap]

"I would counter by saying that many of the people who are using drugs are also the ones pushing for, and voting for our current social safegaurds."

If that is your opinion, you are certainly entitled to it. I would be suprised if you could back it up. Moreover, I believe that this is a logical fallacy. See ad hominem (circumstantial) at http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

"I strongly suspect that the vast majority of drug users in this country would never accept total responsibility for their actions (ie, living without unemployment or medi-cade/care safegaurds), as a just trade for the freedom to excercise their habits."

But, this does not give government the right to violate people's rights. It could give government the power, through consent, but that is not a right. Of course, this is on the assumption that your opinion is reflected in fact. Like the prior assumption, I would be suprised if you could back it up.

"Because the debate is always about what is owed the drug-user through the Constitution, and never about what the drug-user owes me the tax-payer, I cannot accept that the aurgument is simply one person's rights over another."

Owed to the drug-user through the Constitution? The drug-user is owed recognition of his rights, just as you are.

What does the drug-user owe you? He does not take from you. The government does.

[Schmedlap]

"Intoxication by any means is and should be illegal."

How do you justify this?