Posted on 05/16/2002 11:22:07 AM PDT by Reagan Man
The Libertarian Party and like-minded think tanks and policy research centers, most notably the Cato Institute, are proponents of drug legalization. It's said to be an idea whose time has come. Foremost, Libertarians hold to the philosophical stance that individual freedom and responsibility are paramount, requiring strong limits on the role of government. Libertarians claim that the current policy of drug prohibition in fact violates individual liberties. Although Conservatives as a group generally espouse a Libertarian bent, social Conservatives in particular are not purists regarding government intervention, especially when they perceive a threat to the greater good of the citizenry.
Moreover, Libertarians believe that drug legalization is congruent with the notion of "harm reduction", which purports that society actually incurs more damage from stringent drug laws than from the effects of drug usage itself. They cite the negative consequences of our current "prohibitionist" drug policy, which directly led to the creation of a black market, limited drug availability resulting in high drug costs, violence and turf wars in efforts to compete for significant profits, and a burgeoning, expensive criminal justice system. Ostensibly, if drug legalization were to be implemented, availability of drugs would increase, prices would drop markedly, and drug crime and drug trafficking would all but disappear. Moreover, the size and cost of the current criminal justice system would be significantly reduced, a tremendous bonus to the taxpayers. And of course, as a compassionate society, we would offer rehabilitation for those substance users who seek help in kicking their drug habits, a minor price to pay in the scheme of things. Out with the old paradigm, and in with the new paradigm.
The Real Deal--Consequences of Drug Legalization:
Sounds terrific, right? But it's an inaccurate representation of how legalization of drugs would impact our culture. In truth, there would be increases in both drug activity and concomitant social ills and other antisocial behaviors linked to substance abuse, all of which would have a profoundly deleterious effect on our populace. The dysfunctions and problems associated with addiction would probably not manifest to a significant degree in the criminal courts, although we would expect to see a higher number of Driving While Impaired and Assault offenses. Undoubtedly, automobile and workplace accidents would become more commonplace. However, the most profound impact of drug legalization would be reflected in the sharp rise of various social ills and accompanying activity in the family/juvenile court systems, with growing demands upon social service agencies and treatment programs. Addicts often become cross-addicted, so also anticipate more widespread difficulties with alcohol, prescription drug abuse, gambling, etc. The greater prevalence of child abuse and neglect, teenage pregnancies, domestic violence, divorce, juvenile delinquency and other types of societal dysfunction would particularly stress public sector programs paid by the taxpayers. So forget about saving all that tax money, which will be needed to provide government services. Moreover, enacting drug legalization would fail to send the salient message to our youth that indulging in drugs is morally wrong, placing all substance abusers, and those around them, at risk for physical, psychological, and spiritual damage.
A review of the "Dutch Model" demonstrates that drug activity, particularly marijuana usage, has increased with the softening of drug laws and drug policy in the Netherlands. And our nation had some similar experience in the state of Alaska, with the decriminalization of up to four ounces of marijuana between 1975 and 1991. Reportedly, use of that drug went up significantly among Alaskan youth during the referenced time frame. Noteworthy, the marijuana of today is many times more potent than the marijuana available in the 1960's and the 1970's. It is more addictive, and more debilitating than the older versions of the substance, and now often requires intensive treatment for recovery. Beyond marijuana, Ecstasy and other designer drugs, and purer quality heroin and cocaine, will continue to be part of the drug scene.
The Status of the Drug Culture:
As a professional in the field of criminal justice, utilizing both law enforcement and social work skills, I've personally observed an escalation in societal decay, especially since the mid-1990's due to the prevalence of drug usage among those sentenced to community-based supervision. And there is supporting statistical data to demonstrate that substance abuse activity has gone up in recent years, despite the propaganda put forth by the prior Clinton administration. Regarding FBI drug arrest figures, (estimated at 14 million in 1999), these numbers had risen a whopping 36% during the decade 1990 - 1999, with a marked increase in resulting drug convictions. For further information, please refer to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, "Crime in the United States -1999", Section IV, "Persons Arrested". Current drug crime statistics are about the same. But why hasn't the media underscored this salient information for the public? And why hasn't the media "connected the dots" for the citizenry, explaining how drug abuse is directly linked to societal ills?
For more than a decade, the media correctly noted that aggregate crime numbers were down, including violent crime and property crime. But the media was remiss in failing to examine specific types of offenses that statistically increased, seemingly incongruent with overall crime trends. Regarding drug crime particularly, one wonders if the Liberal-leaning media was reluctant to embarrass the ensconced Democratic administration (1993-2000), which was intent on spinning the notion that all crime was declining, supposedly due to Democratic policies and efforts involving great expenditures of money and resources.
But we must ask ourselves why hard-core usage and accompanying drug activity is not responsive to the aggressive policing and negative sanctions effective with most other types of crime. I believe that the situation is complicated by the nature of addiction, which is all encompassing, and often blurs reasoning and the ability to respond appropriately to the threat of punishment and the pressures brought by the court system. Addiction is not just a physiological or psychological phenomenon, but a moral dysfunction as well. It drives those under its influence to engage in the most decadent behaviors, criminal and otherwise.
From years of societal experience with the drug culture, the public is well aware of the depths of depravity, which can be exhibited by addicts. Since the public is more or less cognizant that this population of hard-core users has remained unabridged, they instinctively sense that society is still at great risk for the emergence of additional drug related crime and drug related social pathologies. The media and politicians can laud the overall drop in crime all they want, but the public realizes that drug activity will continue into the foreseeable future with its attending social dysfunction. The public also understands that the degenerate drug culture constantly spawns new addicts to replace those who have perished from the likes of disease, overdose, and street crime. Clearly, the drug culture will only become worse if drug legalization is enacted.
Is Treatment The Answer?
Many criminal justice and mental health professionals tell us that treatment is the solution to substance abuse problems. However, the truth is that the vast majority of chemical dependency programs are ineffective for hard-core drug abusers. From years of monitoring and auditing cases, I can state unequivocally that most, if not all, drug addicts are in a revolving door of various intervention programs, routinely walking out of both residential and outpatient care before completion of treatment. I'm in agreement with calls for providing intensive drug intervention to criminals who are incarcerated, a captive audience, if you will, who would be required to successfully participate and complete treatment as a requirement of their sentence. This leverage may induce the addict-criminal to fulfill program requirements. Although not a panacea, coerced treatment would at least improve the odds of long-term recovery.
Unfortunately, the relapse rate for addicts is overwhelming, with individuals participating in numerous programs over the years before maintaining any real sobriety. In fact, if drug abusers haven't died at an early age from their risky life style, and are lucky enough to make it to middle age, they generally are motivated to seek recovery from addiction only because their bodies are so racked with physical infirmities that they are finally willing and able to maintain abstinence. To make matters worse, hard core drug users have a very negative impact on family members and those around them, inflicting a variety of damage including criminal victimization, child abuse/neglect, domestic violence, passing congenital abnormalities to offspring, and spreading disease. And these individuals collaterally affected by the addict experience severe and ongoing emotional and physical disability, whether or not the addict is eventually removed from the situation via incarceration, death or abandonment. The greater society is also impacted since they are exposed to the dysfunction of the family and friends of addicts, and must provide treatment and interventions for them, as well.
Conclusion:
Legalization of drugs would increase substance abuse, especially among youth, and would cause social pathologies to flourish to an even greater extent than they are flourishing now. Government programs to address the societal problems, spawned by the growing substance abuse culture, would augment the size of the public sector and reliance on taxpayer monies. In effect, drug legalization would spur negative consequences across the societal spectrum.
Clearly, the Libertarian viewpoint on drugs is patently wrong-headed, and would have a profoundly pernicious effect upon our culture. But beyond the question of drug legalization, we as a society must make it a priority to inculcate values in our youth, and help them build character, so that they can be equipped to resist the temptation of drug usage under any circumstances.
I cannot think of one domestic issue that has not been totally screwed up by Federal control, including drug policy.
The liberal interpretation of the Constitution, especially the Commerce Clause, created the need for a forum such as Free Republic.
Every conservative worth the name should support the Tenth Amendment and reject the FDR/LBJ Commerce Clause school of thought, which has empowered Leftists and Socialists.
The RKBA is totally explicit; not all rights are. And so ALL other rights have that in common.
Would you have us conclude that no other rights are assured?
Yeah, as if mandatory sentencing, no-knock raids, and the incarceration of millions upon millions of non-violent "criminals" is a recipe for societal health?
Give me a break. The Puritans had their time in the sun about two hundred years ago. The WOD is not just a recipe for societal decay, it is an abomination, making convicts out of people whose only crime was that they chose to do something that others don't think they should do.
The water is muddied by two groups of people who claim the name "libertarian." To me, it sounds as if those questions are directed to the anarcho-capitalists or whatever they're called.
"What will it's economic plank be?"
I am a supporter of free enterprise.
"How will libertarianism provide for military defense of our nation?"
Taxes.
A longer answer to that would be that the federal government should bill the states for the cost of running the federal government. It should be up to the states to decide how to collect revenue. I believe in the repeal of the 16th amendment, and do not believe the federal government should tax people's income directly.
"If there is an epidemic of terrorism, disease, anarchy, what will be their philosophy or course of action?"
Not all "libertarians" are peaceniks. I am all for peace and trade until we're attacked, at which time I become quite hawkish.
I believe in a strong national defense. The answer to terrorism is to capture or kill those responsibile, and destroy the capability to perform more acts of war. This requires a military, and as suggested above I support taxes be levied to pay for our military.
Disease, likewise, is a subject that requires government attention. Contageous diseases do not respect political boundries, and frequently outbreak cross international boundries. I see a place for the National Centers for Disease Control to deal with epidemics of contageous diseases. Of course, the CDC is hopelessly politicized nowadays in looking to cure such "diseases" as obsesity.
By anarchy, I assume you mean riots and other mayhem. I have little sympathy with looters and rioters, and feel they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
"Are they for nuclear disarmament or against it?"
Against. I support some reduction in our arsenel, because our largest nuclear enemy no longer has their proverbial finger on the button. Otherwise, I am a strong supporter of national defense and strategic weaponry.
"Are they willing to regulate disposal of hazardous materials or will they leave that to business and the states to iron out? Should that prove to be ineffectual how would they deal with inter-state issues?"
Pollution, like virulent disease, knows no political boundries. I see that there is a place for the federal government is regulating hazardous waste, such as radioactive materials, the release of which would contaminate large areas.
However, I do not believe that the federal government has a place in regulating the bruning of leaves and the draining of swamps. Land-use regulation belongs at the state level, not the federal.
"I'm really not asking for line by line specifics; generalities with some illustrations will do."
Hope this helps.
Then again, I am often told by libertarians that I am not one, so maybe you can ignore this post.
Rather a broad statement. I do know some folks who drink responsibly and a few casual "fatty" smokers who do OK but I know quite a few folks ruined or at a minimum impaired noticably by alcohol and pot use. As for other drugs(I used them all when young except crack), I have yet to see too many folks not have difficulties with heroin or crack or cocaine or crank or X or LSD. I know there are exceptions but amongst habitual users it usually becomes problematic and not only because it's illegal. I came of age in the early 70s (the nadir of drug use...and acceptabilty) and everyone I know who moved on to a productive life totally gave up hard drugs and minimized alcohol and pot use. Just my experiences and observations.
At the time my mother smoked cigs and my dad a few cigars (they both quit many years ago). It seems that all us kids had been pestering the folks with some sort of "You smoke, why can't we smoke?" type arguments. Well, it seems they got the bright idea to let us go ahead and smoke if we wanted, under their supervision.
Here's how it worked. They told us to go collect up all the butts we could find around the house and bring them back for a big family smoke-in. What fun this was and we all came back with a big stash.
So, there we were, feeling oh so smart as our parents proceeded to fire-up our smokes. And they even encourged us to smoke as much as we wanted! But the fun didn't last long.
Soon we all got very tired of coughing, and a stange light-headedness set in. Then a little nausea as my parents asked if we'd like some more.
In the end I think it was a long time before any of us ever smoked anything again. I personally never took up smoking, but must admit to puffing on a few in high school, but never found any enjoyment in it.
I think back on this as a brilliant move by my parents. Stupid adults, we couldn't figure out what they wanted to smoke for, it was awful. However, I do wonder what would happen to parents today if they tried this stunt on their kids. Probably some sort of awful public outrage...
You are seeing the heart of contemporary 'conservatism' at work. It is no better than pharaseeism in that it worships the law and damns the citizen.
Libertarian-bashers (and that is what it is when political disagreement requires repeated use of smear, innuendo, and outright name-calling) prefer to overlook the current society AND Constitutional decay by the current system. By insisting that the current system just hasn't be fully funded or that the right people haven't participated, they, in principle, are little different than the marxist apologists for communism, despite obviousl evidence that neither prohibition or communism have ever worked, EVER.
And let's not forget the small element of dishonesty that the lib-bashers constantyly employ, insinuating that the only reason anyone wants drug law reform or the end to the current War on (some) Drugs is for personal use and abuse. Nearly every libertarian on FR has denied those allegations, yet the bashers continue to charge them with allegations of drug abuse.
Some of us promote the maximum amount of freedom and individual responsibility for all, and others don't.
Hope you like it!
Let's not forget, on the historical balance of probabilities, chances are the War on Drugs is a great success at achieving its true goals.
Folks are just unwilling to admit what the true goals are.
Yes, the Great Society and other earlier transfer programs hurt but also the Doppler Effect from the 60s implosion. The Boomers (like me) who bought into all that garbage and rebelled did so because they had the time and money and leisure to do so. Perhaps the first American youth generation with the "liberty" to embrace irresponsibility, and we're now reaping the aftereffects...and it's not pretty. I'm afraid some of this was simply fate and demographics. Problem is...how do we fix it? As you can tell from this thread some folks want to fix the problem and some want to fix the cure and some think there is no problem and hence no cure for that matter.
Societal morality issues are very important, but they are issues that government has shown itself to be spectacularly incompetent at dealing with. And if government is granted the power to impose societal morality rules, there is no guarantee that it will be your preferred rules which will be imposed. Certainly the evidence from recent decades is that government will instead impose rules you personally are likely to detest.
Instilling and inspiring proper moral values is the perview of parents and family and friends and churches and any number of other voluntary organizations and associations, but not government. [Especially not government-run schools, which have tended to shred and destroy proper moral values, but then that's another rant...] The Drug War has exascerbated these problems by creating enormous financial incentives to break the law (just as Prohibition did), by corrupting our judicial system and law-enforcement agencies, and by trashing the Constitution and the principles of a free society upon which this nation was founded.
The most moral thing we can do is end the Drug War, and thereby end this cancer that has been eating into our society and corrupting our government.
Still other want to spend eternity pounding away at the symptoms, while willfully ignoring the problem.
In reverse order.
2. Repeal federal drug laws and turn the issue of legalization over to the states where it belongs.
A viable alternative. Thanks. There is strong arugment for substance control policy being a states rights issue. Although, I don't agree with it, I respect such reasonable and sensible logic.
1. The prohibition of alcohol, a substance arguably more problematic than illicit drugs, was a miserable failure.
Some people view alcohol prohibition as a failure. That's one school of thought. From what I've read over the years, prohibition dramatically cut alcohol use. Several individuals have written that alcohol consumption, was literally cut in half under prohibition. That would make alcohol prohibition a success. Suffice it to say, American's eventually became opposed to alcohol prohibition and it was overturned.
In addition, I view all illicit drugs, including marijuana, to be more highly problematic to our society, then alcohol will ever be. Many people can consume a few alcoholic drinks and not be intoxicated. The same can not be said for using heroin, cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, designer drugs and on and on and on. Think about it. Smoke a joint, shoot up heroin, snort some cocaine, pop a pill and you're high! Period. Most people don't get stoned from a few drinks. That may be a generalization to some, but its one, that makes complete sense.
Then there are the effects that legalizing, illicit drugs, would have on the children of America. That's an issue we should all take very seriously.
You should ask yourself why you don't want to grasp that nettle.
I grew up in NYCity, in the 1950`s, 1960`s and into the early 1970`s. Its simply not true, that marijuana prohibiton was an artificial creation of government. Since the earliest civilized society, the people, through their (representative) government, have been placing restrictions on certain aspects of life. Through thousands of years, society has more often then not, placed reasonable restrictions on people, through basic moral and ethical considerations.
I would agree, and the result is the same whether or not drugs are legal.
IMO The difference between legal and illegal drugs is that legitimate businesses don't typically kill their competitors.
Bears repeating!
Thanks for the compliment; it's important that we back each other up on these issues. I appreciate that our fellow Freepers treat us with a lot more respect than the left-wing whiners and their fellow travelers, even when they disagree with us.
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.