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 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.
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.
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).
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!"
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!
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.