Is the Drug War a Conservative or Liberal Issue? (Warning: I am a Newbie to starting posts)

Sensei Ern

[Sensei Ern]

For many years, I have been a strong opponent of legalizing drugs. As you read this, remember that I am still against drug legalization, but I have more sympathy for the opposing argument.

The reason I have been opposed to drug legalization is to protect children. I grew up in a home that was one step up from a crack house..at least we had heat and food. I know first hand what can happen when a child lives in those conditions.

As a counter, I have always felt that use of tobacco and alcohol should be legal for those of a responsible age.

The reason I am considering a change is because of the pain I went through this last month. Four weeks ago, I had a root canal done on a tooth...it was Friday. Once the Novocain wore off, I was in serious pain because the doctor was inexperienced and left a partial root. I experienced pain worse than listening to Rosanne Barr sing the National Anthem. He forgot to write a prescription.

I called the emergency number only to be told I could see the doctor on Monday. TWO WHOLE DAYS IN EXTREME PAIN! I had some 800mg Ibuprofen in the medicine cabinet. That only took away enough pain to convince myself to not commit suicide to stop the pain.

On Monday, I was given a prescription of Tylenol 3 with Codeine and an antibiotic. That took away the pain. Until it ran out. Again, extreme pain. Another dentist did another root canal...and again did not get the whole root. I made sure he gave me a prescription for the pain, before I left the office.

Finally, when that ran out, and another dentist completed the root canal, the pain has subsided.

To be in the kind of debilitating pain I was in, cannot be described. Bill Cosby once talked about taking your bottom lip and pulling it over your head...that comes close.

I have always been an advocate of personal responsibility. That conflicted with knowing that some of the drugs offered today are so dangerous that they needed to be regulated. Then, I thought back about how things were a hundred years ago. The doctor prescribed a treatment, and you either made it yourself, or went to the pharmacist, who mixed up the more potential drugs.

Back then, the only regulation was, could you afford the cost? Drugs were available, and the pharmacist would determine whether you were abusing. If you OD'd on a drug from abuse, you died and life went on for others. But, you could get drugs if they were needed, and you did not have to wait until Monday. You didn't need to wait for approval from anyone to use a drug.

That is enough about that for the moment.

If drugs were to be legalized, they should be regulated like alcohol and cigarettes...have a legal purchasing age. Also, if you do harm to another while under the influence of anything, you should be held personally responsible...to the fullest extent, especially capital punishment for causing a death. If you are taking drugs to get high, strap yourself into a chair and sleep it off.

If drugs were immediately legalized, we could expect some immediate effects. For one, the drug addicts would run out and by everything, and we would have a rash of overdosing for about a month. The rest of us could then go on with our lives, only mourning the loss of a relative, instead of daily living with the horror of a drug addict in our lives.

Currently, I believe law enforcement should be stronger. But, I could be moved to undecided if I heard good arguments for the opposite.

--Pray for our troops --Pray they have wisdom to do the right thing --Pray they remain courageous --Pray they know we love and support them --Pray they get the equipment they need to do the job --Pray for their safe return home to a hero’s welcome

[johnb838]

The borders are wide open. Cocaine is cheap as dirt. You should have got you some. A little topically, a little up the nose, you would have been fine as frog's hair.

Don't blame me, talk to Arbusto. There is no war on drugs.

[wingnutx]

Alcohol can be used in moderation; illegal drugs cannot.

Of course they can.

[Indy Pendance]

I started posting, and from your initial reply, you've done nothing but bash me. I never once insulted you, called you stupid or wrong or insulted you in any way, yet you've done that to me several times. I stated my opinion in a factual manor, if I was wrong, you called me ignorant instead of explaining, you 'read' into my posts, your inferences, and went from there. I started figuring you out when you told me to let fences rob my house. How ridiculous an analogy. You should learn about freedom, liberty and what it means. In the meantime, good luck with your education. Once you figure out what real conservatism is, you'll know exactly what we here have been trying to get across. I'll give you a hint, it's less government intrusion. It's not whether or not drugs are legal, it's how the governmnet goes about it. Until then, you're just a wanna be conservative who thinks society can correct the ills of an individual. I only wish you good with your pursuit of the truth and how conservatism works.

[unlearner]

"There is not a single illegal drug that is as addictive or as lethal as tobacco. And there are very, very few legal drugs that are as harmless and benign as marijuana. Caffeine, aspirin, even vitamin A are all more toxic than pot."

First of all, toxicity is not the correct measure of the harmfulness of a substance. Like you said, vitamin A can be toxic, yet our bodies need it. Marijuana is is a mind altering, addictive drug.

"There is nothing that we know of that is more addictive than nicotine, although caffeine comes close. Even heroin falls short."

Nonsense. I know people (including my father) who simply chose to stop smoking. It was not easy at first but nothing compared to a heroin addict going through withdrawal.

"Put the drug trade in the hands of reputable businessmen with licenses they do not want to lose, and you may see the availability of drugs to children decrease."

More nonsense. Children and teenagers today drink more than during prohibition because of accessibility.

Drugs are about two things: getting high and controlling people. These are not worthy causes in my book. I will continue to vote for leaders who oppose drug legalization because I would rather pay the cost of enforcement than the cost of the alternative.

[LexBaird]

I would urge you to read Justice Thomas as to how that Clause is being abused.

And I agree with him and you in regards to the recent Medical MJ ruling. Grown for your own purposes and never being sold, nor crossing state borders clearly puts the substance outside of the Commerce Clause. As such, it is strictly a State's power to regulate said substance. California (as a society, through the Proposition system) chose to allow it.

- Not so, as due process must also be followed in framing the laws. The judiciary has the duty to strike down unconstitutional prohibitive laws that violate due process.

There is no delegated government power to prohibit in our Constitution.

And is therefore reserved to the States: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So any State can prohibit a drug or alcohol in accordance to its laws.

Not true. States cannot infringe upon an individuals constitutional rights to life, liberty, or property without due process. -- See the 14th.

Your logic is circular. If a law has passed Constitutional review, as most drug prohibition laws have, then they have passed due process. If a power isn't delegated to the Feds, nor prohibited to the States, then the States reserve that power, or the people do. If the people of a State elect their State Reps, and empower them to prohibit drugs (or, conversely, permit them or otherwise regulate them), due process has been followed per the 10th A. Thus "dry" counties in Tennessee, or Medical MJ permits.

Again, the laws created must not infringe upon the individual rights outlined in the Constitution.

You omit the all-important "without due process." The State can take your life, liberty, and property, as long as due process is given, and the laws are equally applied to all. The Constitutional vetting of the law is part of the due process of individual cases.

[Politicalities]

First of all, toxicity is not the correct measure of the harmfulness of a substance. Like you said, vitamin A can be toxic, yet our bodies need it. Marijuana is is a mind altering, addictive drug.

Marijuana is mind-altering, as are alcohol and caffeine, but it is not addictive. Marijuana users experience neither physical dependence nor tolerance nor withdrawal, the measures of addiction.

Nonsense. I know people (including my father) who simply chose to stop smoking. It was not easy at first but nothing compared to a heroin addict going through withdrawal.

Boy, do people on the pro-Prohibition side like to cite anecdotes. It doesn't matter that anecdotes are statistically meaningless; you guys sure do love them so. Never mind your father and friends. The relapse rate for those who attempt to give up nicotine is much higher than that for those who attempt to give up heroin. My sincere congratulations to your father; assuming he stays tobacco-free, he's managed to accomplish something that 90% of smokers fail to do.

[mugs99]

But it would be wrong to think that drug use would remain at current levels if it were legalized

We were told that if prohibition were repealed alcohol abuse would become epidemic. It went down.

Over twenty years ago heroin addiction was epidemic in Holland. They had a tougher drug war than we now have. They ended their drug war. Heroin addiction went down and is now the lowest in the free world.

Prohibition, alcohol or drugs, increases addiction, crime and death. Prohibition does not make kids safer, it increases their risk.
...

[unlearner]

"Of course [illegal drugs] can [be used in moderation]."

You know of someone who uses drugs but not enough to be impaired or high?

And "I never inhaled" Clinton doesn't count.

[unlearner]

Most laws do legislate someone's morality. For example, communists do not believe in personal property. The right to own property is granted by God and takes the form of the command "Thou shalt not steal."

This type of debate is merely transitional. Just like abortion. Abortion was "legalized" based largely on false information. Here is what usually happens:

1. People push to change laws based on false assumptions.
2. Those who want to preserve the law fail to persuade the majority of the dangers and consequences.
3. The law is changed and the consequences happen.
4. Those who push for change deny the consequences exist, or argue why they are not so bad, or blame some other cause.

[Politicalities]

You know of someone who uses drugs but not enough to be impaired or high?

And what exactly is wrong with being impaired or high? Actually, let me rephrase: what is wrong with being impaired or high that justifies spending billions of dollars, foregoing additional billions in tax revenue, trampling on civil liberties, and directly leading to thousands of deaths in order to achieve a marginal reduction in impairment and/or highness?

[Dominic Harr]

Is the Drug War a Conservative or Liberal Issue?

IMHO, neither.

It is a big government issue.

This makes me wonder -- I thought that the 'L v C' difference *was* big govt v. smaller govt.

[wingnutx]

So a person who becomes mildly impaired twice a year in their own home is not using in moderation? I would say that it is.

When my wife has a single beer I consider it moderate use, but she still certainly can't drive until it is out of her system.

[downtoliberalism]

The basis of our laws were formed from the Ten Commandments. Which IMHO, are enough guidance towards morality. My real question in all of this is, will we still have the need of a Congress in fifty years from today? Will we still be writing new legislation then? When are we going to decide enough is enough?

Also just to point out the irony, neither does our Supreme Court see that we posses personal property.

[Dominic Harr]

I'm just going to point out that the 'title' of this thread brings up maybe the most important issue we currently face.

The 'media' has redefined 'conservative'. Perhaps we now need two phrases --

• Politically Conservative: that is, smaller, less intrusive govt. "Individual solutions to problems", not "collective" ones.

• Socially Conservative: It would be wiser for a 'social' conservative to fill in this def, as I am not one. But from my limited point of view, a 'social' conservative is one who wants to use 'collective', govt solutions to individual problems.

And most interestingly of all, it doesn't appear to be possible to be both, "politically conservative" and "socially conservative".

[LexBaird]

Indy, you are correct: I did answer your initial post too hotly. I apologise for the tone. That said, you have not been reading my posts carefully or critically. For example, I never told you to "let fences rob your house". Rather, I drew an analogy to cops letting a burglar of your house go while they instead focused on the "root cause" of fences receiving the goods. Is it a ridiculous analogy? Yes, and so is the idea of not having cops pursue street dealers.

Until then, you're just a wanna be conservative who thinks society can correct the ills of an individual.

I'm under no such illusion. I'm not looking to cure sick individuals. I am looking for societal protection FROM sick individuals, in the form of laws and punishments for the damages they cause.

Furthermore, don't confuse Libertarianism with Conservatism. Conservatives are concerned with the preservation of all that is seen as good and/or stable in a society. Libertarians will happily sacrifice many of those things on the altar of Individuality. Too much Conservatism is stagnation and repression. Too much Libertarianism is anarchy.

[unlearner]

"Marijuana users experience neither physical dependence nor tolerance nor withdrawal, the measures of addiction."

The measures also include reinforcement and intoxication. However, there is still a very big difference when comparing marijuana to something like caffeine. People use marijuana to get high. You cannot act responsibly while you are high.

I guess people who go to rehab for pot addiction are wasting their time since you say it is nonaddictive?

[wingnutx]

People go to rehab for pot because a court orders them to.

I have a lot of experience taking real junkies to rehab, and they aren't pot smokers.

[Politicalities]

However, there is still a very big difference when comparing marijuana to something like caffeine. People use marijuana to get high.

And why do people use caffeine? Or alcohol? Or tobacco? Why do people choose to go bowling, or listen to John Tesh? More to the point, what motherloving business is it of yours how anybody else chooses to spend his leisure time? Who died and made you God? What gives you the right to decree that certain methods of recreation are kosher while others are anathema? Just who the hell do you think you are, anyway?

You cannot act responsibly while you are high.

It ain't terribly responsible to sit in front of a television with a can of Pringles, either. Let's start arresting people for that.

[wingnutx]

It ain't terribly responsible to sit in front of a television with a can of Pringles, either.

There is definitely a correlation to marijuana there :D

[backtothestreets]

"Too many people sitting in jail for non-violent simple possession crimes. Let them out and make room for violent offenders."

I've considered this issue myself, and originally took the same position.  It took me quite awhile to probe this deeper.  When I did, my opinion shifted for one reason.  The people sitting in jail for non-violent simple possession had a common bond with the violent offender.  They had a disregard for the law.  Like it or not, it is law that binds a society.  If a person or group disagrees with the law, don't break it, change it.  Breaking the law, whatever it may be, shows a contempt for law and society itself.

Breaking the law can only be justified when it serves the society as a whole, and not the individual.  It was that service to society, not individual, that drew the forefathers of our nation together.

I'm not belittling the opinion you and others hold.  A great many people share the opinion.  I agree these non-violent offenders shouldn't receive a life sentence, but I believe the non-violent offenders must be dealt justice for breaking the law.  That may be a year for first time non-violent offenders, but it could become a life sentence for habitual non-violent offenders.  The premise of law in our society must be uncompromising.  It is our very foundation.

It may surprise you to know I see the failed War on Drugs as justification for change and governing illicit drugs in the same manner alcohol has been governed with the end of Prohibition.  Even if that day came about, I would be inclined to keep the non-violent drug possessor in prison that broke the laws of possession prior to the change.  Law must be upheld.  It's not a question of violent versus non-violent crime.  It's a question of law being respected.