Posted on 06/07/2010 11:20:04 AM PDT by bamahead
Voter dissatisfaction with Republicans and Democrats is at historic levels, and the tea-party movement is hoping to play kingmaker in the November elections. The country’s current breed of discontent is ideal for the tea parties, because economic concerns are foremost, allowing the movement to sidestep the divisions between its libertarian and conservative wings.
As the elections near, however, voters will want to know where the party stands not just on the economy but on social issues. A perfect illustration is drug policy, where conservatives advocate continued prohibition but libertarians argue for legalization. Which way should the tea party lean when this issue arises?
If the party is true to its principles — fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets — it must side with the libertarians.
Fiscal responsibility means limiting government expenditures to programs that can be convincingly said to generate benefits in excess of their costs. This does not rule out programs with large expenditures, or ones whose benefits are difficult to quantify; national defense is guilty on both counts, yet few believe that substantial military expenditure is necessarily irresponsible.
Any significant expenditure, however, should come with a credible claim that it produces a benefit large enough to outweigh both the expenditure itself and any ancillary costs. From this perspective, drug prohibition is not remotely consistent with fiscal responsibility. This policy costs the public purse around $70 billion per year, according to my estimates, yet no evidence suggests that prohibition reduces drug use to a significant degree. And prohibition has unintended consequences that push its cost-benefit ratio even farther in the wrong direction. Prohibition generates violence and corruption by pushing drug markets underground and inflating prices. Prohibition inhibits quality control, so users suffer accidental poisoning and overdoses. Prohibition destroys civil liberties, inhibits legitimate medical uses of targeted drugs, and wreaks havoc in drug-producing countries.
Drug prohibition, at least when imposed at the federal level, is also hard to reconcile with constitutionally limited government. The Constitution gives the federal government a few expressly enumerated powers, with all others reserved to the states (or to the people) under the Tenth Amendment. None of the enumerated powers authorizes Congress to outlaw specific products, only to regulate interstate commerce. Thus laws regulating interstate trade in drugs might pass constitutional muster, but outright bans cannot. Indeed, when the United States wanted to outlaw alcohol, it amended the Constitution itself to do so. The country has never adopted such a constitutional authorization for drug prohibition.
Finally, drug prohibition is hopelessly inconsistent with allegiance to free markets, regardless of the level of government. Free markets should mean both that businesses can operate as they please and that individuals can purchase and consume whatever they want, so long as these actions do not harm others, even when such decisions seem unwise. Drug prohibition interferes with precisely these activities.
Thus, if the tea-party believes in its principles, it must choose the libertarian path on drug prohibition.
The State of California is trying to do this.
The illegal drug producers are opposing it.
“Guess what? You have no Constitutional right to drugs. Destroying two generations should be enough for you. You don’t get any more.”
Ummmm. . . it was illegal for those two generations. Our prisons have plenty of nonviolent offenders, the police act like the military and invade homes in alarming numbers, etc. etc. etc.
I think if you want to save the next two generations, you may want to reconsider your approach.
If it didn’t work the first time, it didn’t work the second time, try it a third time! Yeah! Then it will *really* work great!
P.S. I’ve never even tried the crap, I have kids and I am not as afraid of the poor choices my children may make as I am of the poor decisions the government makes.
We draw the line where it should always be drawn in order to maximize personal liberty. Any behavior that doesn’t cause harm to an uninvolved party should be legal.
Having said that, if you are stupid enough to use drugs, then I am patriot enough to let you.
You have no constitutional authority to prohibit them, either.
The constitution is meant to be a limit on GOVERNMENT; not on a free people.
Of course they are. Legalization would take most of the profit out of it.
So has every other war against every other crime. Does that mean we should just make it all legal so we don't have to spend money? If not, just exactly where do we draw the line?
How about some amendments for the war on some drugs like they had the courtesy to enact for alcohol prohibition. Making alcohol requires work. Many of these drugs are found in nature and are medicinally useful.
Will you support CA's prerogative under the Tenth Amendment to enact the policy without fedgov interference? Or, would you support fedgov trying to shut it down under authority of the Commerce Clause?
And think of the OSHA, EEOC, DEA, CBER, and FDA audits they’d have to endure. ;)
And pretending to advocate for "freedom" while promoting a lifestyle of destruction, degradation and hopelessness would be laughable if it wasn't so evil.
Ah, the Drug War Fascists...
Classic confusion of the issue. ALMOST NO ONE WANTS LEGALIZATION--BUT STOP THE ALL OUT WAR. IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. Why is that so hard to understand?
Yes and no. In accordance with the Tenth Amendment, the Federal "war on drugs" is improper, but that does not preclude the States (or their constituent jurisdictions) from banning or otherwise regulating the consumption of various controlled substances nor does it preclude the People themselves voluntarily electing not to consume said controlled substances.
The heart of the matter here is whether the Federal government should have the right and power to regulate what substances are consumed by individuals. If you believe that the Federal "war on drugs" is proper and Constitutional, then you should have no qualms about a "war on obesity," a "war on smoking," etc. as it is necessary to completely control every essence of the lives of the People in order to effectively enforce said "war on drugs."
Note that I am not advocating for the consumption of controlled substances, nor am I advocating that said consumption is a good thing or a desirable choice for individuals, nor am I advocating that the undesirable consequences of the consumption of controlled substances by individuals be involuntarily socialized to the entire population. I am, however, advocating that the Federal government not infringe upon the right of individuals to their freedom to elect to consume controlled substances in accordance with their natural, unalienable rights to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness, pursuant to those individuals' willingness to accept and uphold their responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
So you're for a "war on obesity"?
Does this mean you favor giving the Federal government the effectively unlimited right and the power to micromanage the lives of their citizens in order to promote a lifestyle not "of destruction, degradation and hopelessness"?
Or maybe you favor such a course of action, so long as you're making the determination.
It beats me what you're all whining about. Federal drug enforcement barely exists. Go home and stay stoned. Please. The sooner you all destroy your brains, the better off everyone else will be.
Drop dead, loser. Figures you’d be pro-drug.
99% of it outside of the borders, the feds should stay out of it. The rest should be decided by local and state matters. Personally, I think things that don't directly harm other people (IE, crimes against persons and property) should be mostly decriminalized. If someone smokes a joint, I don't care unless they are driving stoned and putting others at risk. Meth and heroin I have more of a problem, but they need help, not prison.
Socialism and Libertarianism are polar opposites. One side thinks all economic matters should be controlled by the government. The other believes in almost no government.
If you want. I've just never understood the whole argument that falls along the lines of "Well they've been fighting against drugs for decades and people are still using drugs, so the war is lost. Lets give up." Every crime continues. That doesn't give us a reason to make the thing (whatever it is) legal. There needs to be some other argument made.
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.