Posted on 08/23/2002 12:42:18 AM PDT by Schmedlap
A few issues, regarding the legalization of drugs that are currently illegal:
1) I have observed that many who object to the legalization of narcotics assume that legalization of private possession and use of narcotics also implies the legalization of criminal activities done under the influence of drugs. I do not understand this leap. In what way does not arresting people who use drugs in the privacy of their home imply that a police officer will just wave to a passing crack head, as he drives by at 80 miles per hour, smoking a crack pipe.
2) I have also observed that many who object to the legalization of narcotics assume that people who support legalization simply wants to use drugs - as if this matters. First off, the motivations of the proponents of legalization do nothing to alter the substance or lack thereof of their argument. But, just to address this wildly popular notion: I, for one, have no desire to use any drug that is currently illegal, nor do I hope to need or desire any drug that is legal for medicinal or recreational purposes. I rarely even drink beer. My objection to the government prohibition on certain drugs is on the grounds that what people do in the privacy of their homes is none of the governments business, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. Whether you want to possess drugs, weapons, or beanie babies should be no concern of your neighbor, your police department, or any echelon of government, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. If you have 10 pounds of plutonium, for instance, that violates the rights of your neighbors. If you have 10 pounds of cocaine, that does not violate anybodys rights.
3) Likewise, I do not understand why proponents of legalizing drugs take such weak stances in favor of it, such as well, alcohol is worse for you than pot, and alcohol is legal. This assumes that the government's actions can be justified by their probability of positively influencing your health. Evidence exists that smoking is worse for your health than alcohol, as well. Should we ban cigarettes and arrest anyone who purchases, distributes, or smokes them? Since when is it the governments responsibility to protect a person from himself? The purpose of government is to secure our rights, by protecting private property, and attempting to safeguard us from hurting each other. In other words, governments role is to stop a man about to commit murder, not to stop a terminally ill cancer patient about to euthanize himself.
The bottom line is that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is none of the governments business, nor is it the business of you or I, so long as people do not do direct harm to one another, one anothers property, or otherwise violate one anothers rights. Neither I, nor my government, have the right to tell you that you cannot snort cocaine in your home, whether you want to do it or not. The government has the right, and the duty, to arrest you if you attempt to drive on a public road, while under the influence of a drug, while impaired visually or mentally, or even if you have not had sufficient sleep to stay awake, while driving.
I welcome thoughtful responses to this post; particularly those which refute any of the arguments above, or offer suggestions to strengthen the arguments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
This is an interesting tangent on the subject: anyone else have preconditions for decriminalization?
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.
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."
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".
GOD!, when will my generation grow up?
Does that apply to alcohol and tobacco as well?
What I'm getting at is whether alcohol and tobacco should be banned until the welfare state is dismantled.
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.
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.
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.