Libertarians Advocate Drug Legalization: Recipe For Escalating Societal Decay

GOPUSA.COM ^ | May.16,2002 | Carol Devine-Molin

[BikerNYC]

Since the earliest civilized society, the people, through their (representative) government, have been placing restrictions on certain aspects of life.

How many of these representative governments have existed since "the earliest civilized society?"

[Ken H]

"How do we fix it?"

I think Jim Robinson has as good an answer as anyone with the Free Republic mission statement.

The answer is to return the Federal government to its constitutionally mandated functions and let each State deal with domestic issues, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment.

Those States that pursue destructive policies will be seen for the failures they are, while those States that govern wisely will thrive and their ideas will spread.

I believe this would have a beneficial effect on the drug problem as well as other domestic problems.

[headsonpikes]

"Not everything the government tells you is true."

I see that sentiment was viewed as too radical for the thread.

My post was deleted. ;^)

Of course, that may have been because I was unduly blunt.

[galt-jw]

seriously, though, do you honestly believe, with the vast resources avail., that the govt. couldnt stop drugs from entering the country if they really wanted to? too much revenue, too many black ops funded by drugs-airamerica and heroin in vietnam, etc.

[Mark Bahner]

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.

Conservativism "worships the law"?!! Bwaahahahahahaha! :-) That's hilarious!

"The Law" in the United States is the Constitution. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution absolutely forbids federal regulation of any drug. (That's why a Constitutional amendment was required to regulate alcohol.)

Conservatives shamelessly ignore The Law when they support federal criminalization of ANY drug (absent a Constitutional amendment).

Legalization of ALL drugs (at least at the federal level)...it's The Law. (Elected/appointed) conservatives certainly don't "worship" The Law. They don't even follow it! And conservatives among The People certainly don't insist that the people they elect follow The Law. If they did, they'd vote Libertarian (at the federal level, at minimum).

[HiTech RedNeck]

Ronald Reagan "Himself" believed that marijuana was an awful scourge, swallowing the WODLEO rhetoric hook line and sinker. I think the problem is that nervous nellies get weirded out at trumped-up stories about the temporary mental effects of marijuana (while winking at those of alcohol).

The worst thing about marijuana is that, like tobacco or other "legal" smokable herbs, consumption past a certain level can significantly worsen one's cancer risk. (On the other hand, a typical marijuana user's usage levels are lower than the tobacco usage of a typical smoker.)

I have never had any marijuana and if its Federal ban were ever repealed, I would probably still never have any. I think smoking, especially, is icky and would only try it as a desperate "medicinal" measure where no other way of administration were possible. But I don't run from it crying "wolf! wolf!"

[wardaddy]

LOL...I'm not meaning to sound too semantical but I think there is also quite a bit of disagreement over what is exactly "the problem" and who bears responsibility.

[texlok]

I don't particularly care for drugs, but the WOD has been a complete and utter failure. The laws aren't stopping people from buying and using them. The police departments are becoming more and more militarized and more and more your hearing about raids without warrants, rights being violated left and right, etc.

Meanwhile you have drunk drivers killing over five times as many people as died on 9/11, but nobody cares, because hey! it's alcohol, it doesn't hurt anybody!

[tacticalogic]

Its simply not true, that marijuana prohibiton was an artificial creation of government.

According to the accounts from the Congressional Record I've read, when the original bill to prohibit marijuana came up for debate, the Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn was asked what it was about. He replied ""I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marijuana. I think it is a narcotic of some kind." Does this sound like marijuana prohibition was the result of some great public demand? Most of the information about marijuana that was available to the media came from Harry Anslinger's Bureau of Narcotics. You seem absolutely sure there was no attempt by the government to influence public opinion on the subject by misinformation. Do you think the material and Congressional testimony by Mr. Anslinger that can be found on the web will support that assertion?

[Fry]

the black market that Wo(s)d-ers insist would still exist if these substances were legalized is currently non-existent on a national level with regards to alcohol and tobacco.

Don't you think the main reason there is no black market for these products is because they are widely, legally available and competitively priced?

And there are black market cigarettes in cities where the per pack taxes are too high (these are stolen cigarettes, not hand rolled ones) and Moonshiners still exist. Granted, neither of these constitute problems approaching the illegal drug trade, but they do exist. The only way a black market wouldn't exist for legalized drugs would be if those drugs were competitively priced. Would you want that?

[Eagle Eye]

Perhaps I should have made a clear distinction between "The Law" and the Constitution. They clearly prefer the Law over the Constitution.

[Mark Bahner]

Narcotics cannot be discussed in the same light as alcohol because the effects of addiction are not the same.

Alcohol IS a narcotic. (From the root "narco"...numbing.)

From Dictionary.com: An addictive drug, such as opium, that reduces pain, alters mood and behavior, and usually induces sleep or stupor.

During the Civil War, alcohol was consumed prior to surgery, precisely because of its narcotic effect. Timeline for alcohol use in America...see 1862

[sweet_diane]

"Contrary to libertarian propaganda, most people who are caught with small amounts of marijuana, are not automatically thrown in jail on a first time offense."

From what I've seen (from volunteering my time at a local Drug & Alcohol Treatment Center) that only works for the likes Dionne Warwick and friends, not your average joe.

[wardaddy]

There was actual a brief window back in the old days 20 years ago when pot smugglers and dealers did not kill each other. The incidence of violence amongst the new gangster crack dealers and the South American drug lord ilk amongst others is also a cultural issue as much as the fact that it is illegal. I am wary of explaining away the problem with drugs as being caused by their illegality. There are a myraid of problem causing issues associated with drug use and drug dealing aside from violence. Legalization would not in my view cure all of these ills. I know folks who legitimately abuse painkillers and tranquilizers with the help of unethical doctors and criminality is not the issue but a whole host of other problems besides those affecting strictly the abuser come into play. This is a major plank for the WOD proponents with regards to drug use being victimless. As I've said before on this thread there is that often lamented third rail of action which I fear that uncharacteristically I'm in favor of here.

[BlackbirdSST]

...the anti-prohibition camps gaining momentum. Source?

I didn't make that particular reference Roscoe, but look to the world, for the source. I do agree with the statement though! I may have said something similar in a previous post. So I'll stand by it, regardless of who said it. Blackbird.

[sheltonmac]

"Several individuals have written that alcohol consumption, was literally cut in half under prohibition. That would make alcohol prohibition a success."

Prohibition also created a huge black market demand for alcohol and directly led to a new era in organized crime. In my opinion that would make alcohol prohibition a failure.

"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."

Why shouldn't legalization be a states' rights issue? A whole host of other criminal justice issues are left to the states so why not this one? The only constitutional argument that can possibly be made for any federal drug law is under the purview of foreign commerce. Under the Constitution, the federal government has every right to regulate the importation of drugs from foreign countries. However, a marijuana plant grown in the backyard would strictly be a state issue.

Let's be careful with using the "It's for the children" argument popularized by the left. If we really wanted to protect the children we would push for a ban on fatty foods, require everyone to wear non-flammable padded clothing, and set a national speed limit of 10 mph. Think of all the lives that could be saved! Of course, that would never fly. An abuse of constitutional boundaries is an abuse of constitutional boundaries, whether we are talking about drugs, food, clothing or speed limits.

[BlackbirdSST]

The hundreds of thousands in jail for selling weed are murderers and killers? Get real...

I'll pull a Roscoe. Source? Blackbird.

[conserv13]

I am pro-legalization.

I say treat drug ABUSE as a health problem - thats what it is.

Recreational drug USE should be fine, same as alcohol is now.

The only people who should be incarcerated are violent criminals, thieves, etc..., NOT drug users/abusers.

[wardaddy]

I'm not sure. Insofar as personal use that could be effective for the states to resolve as they see fit. However, I'm not sure how that would affect interstate transport or international smuggling.

Also it will (or already has) lead to complexities such as we have with gun laws. What is perfectly legal here in Tennessee will get you serious jail time in California or Maryland or Massachusetts. Remember the old oil company PR ads? "The is no simple solution, only intelligent responses" or something to that effect....

[Mark Bahner]

Perhaps I should have made a clear distinction between "The Law" and the Constitution. They clearly prefer the Law over the Constitution.

Yes, but MY point is that The Law IS the Constitution. (Not the #@$% that Republicans and Democrats dish out.) Article 6 of the Constitution very clearly states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;...

It is simply NOT possible to say that one supports following The Law, unless one supports following the Constitution. And FEDERAL regulation of ANY drug violates the Constitution, under the 10th Amendment:

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.

EVERY SINGLE federal "law" regarding any drug is NOT made "persuant to the Constitution"...and therefore every single federal law on any drug is illegitimate (illegal). That's why conservatives are NOT following The Law when the vote for/enforce federal laws or regulations on drugs; they are VIOLATING The Law.