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.
First, thanks for giving me the opportunity to respond to your specific concerns. Before I give you my opinion on the issues you've raised, I would direct you to www.lp.org for the party's official positions in the interest of accuracy on my part. That said I believe its economic plank would be no income tax and government funded by tariffs on imported goods that we already collect. National defense would be funded by those tariffs and by selling off federal property that the government shouldn't own in the first place. For example The Nature Conservancy, a national nonprofit organization which purchases environmentally sensitive lands could take over many of the wetlands and similar areas that are now under government supervision. As I appear to be running out of room here I'll respond to the rest of your concerns in my next reply.
Maybe you'd like to join me in my volunteer work. I volunteer at a Drug & Alcohol Treatment Center. It is not government sponsored tho... and most of my contact is with the men (currently an all mens facility) and not the folks with the diplomas on their walls. You might change your opinion. My experience pretty much comes from the horses mouth, so to speak. We've often talked about how, basically, everyone has the same story... be their drug of choice alcohol, cocaine, meth, etc.
As I said, they revere the law while wiping with the Constitution.
Now it's my turn to 'pull a Roscoe'..lol. Do you have a source for this?
Thanks
But it's obvious you know very little about the full range of detrimental effects, that marijuana has on human beings and society. I think Ronald Reagan understood those harmful effects, as do many other individuals. Some people speak from first hand knowledge and experiences related to illicit drug and alcohol abuse.
What experiences have you been through and what expertise do you bring to the table? Are you an expert in the field of drug and alcohol abuse? Have you ever worked in a drug rehab program? Have you ever spent time with drug addicts and alcoholics?
I'm not an expert clinician in the substance abuse field, but I've experienced drug and alcohol abuse first hand. No matter what the pro-pot propagandists may say, marijuana isn't a harmless drug. And neither is alcohol.
Fifty Republics governing in fifty unique ways, with constitutionally guaranteed rights for its citizens, would work if given the chance.
Reagan said that there are simple answers, just no easy ones.
Any epidemic of anarchy/terrorism/disease should be handled by the National Guard and existing state and local governments which would still be coordinated with the federal government since their only Constitutional function is the protection of citizens' lives and property. That would not change in a Libertarian society. Mutual and independently verified nuclear arms reduction is our policy since we definitely have more nuclear weapons than we need for self-defense.
Regulation of hazardous materials should be handled by the states as there is no legitimate reason for the federal government to own property outside of possibly military bases. There is no "right to pollute" for businesses contrary to what some Libertarians have said. (I'm thinking here of Interior Secretary and former Libertarian Gale Norton who is said to have made that remark). Businesses have no more right to pollute our water or air than they do to pollute our backyards or front lawns. We all have private property rights and since the air and water belong to all of us as citizens businesses cannot pollute them without making full financial restitution to the people in the affected communities. The federal government shouldn't have to get involved in that issue at all unless polluters disregard states' authority.
That's comforting to know.
Why won't you deal with the fact that the WOD is a success?
You obstinately adhere to the substance of government propaganda handouts; that to you, is the equivalent of Holy writ, apparently.
Are you a Drug War profiteer? If not, why is your mind closed to the one explanation of the current situation which fits the facts?
Why? Why? Why?
I never actually said that and I don't believe the government is in the habit of spreading misinformation to its citizens. Eventually people find out they've been lied to and then things get real ugly. Law enforcement and the criminal justice system had significant input in making marijuana an illegal and controlled substance. But it sprung out of the growth of the 1960`s drug culture, which finally opened the eyes of society and subsequently lead to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. You want everyone to believe that marijuana was made illegal, as an artificial creation of the government. It wasn't!
The "problem" with cigarettes is that they are addictive and bad for you. The "problem" with alcohol is that some people drink to excess (as most studies indicate that mild consumption of alcohol--at least wine--actually has overall beneficial effects to health). And alcohol can also be addictive, for a relatively small percentage of the population.
Legalization would not in my view cure all of these ills.
Of course legalization will never "cure all of these ills!" Has legalized nicotine or alcohol "cured all of the ills" caused by those drugs?
The "ills" that legalization DOES cure include:
1) At the federal level, it ends the federal government violating The Law, and usurping powers that are reserved for "the States or the people."
2) It turns drug use from a criminal matter to a health matter, which is more appropriate. (Crimes should be reserved for those matters in which there is a complainant. Because without a complainant, the government has to go to extraordinary lengths to obtain a prosecution.)
3) It dramatically decreases the price of drugs, thus dramatically reducing the money paid to terrorists. (It's ironic--not to mention dishonest--how the federal government blames USERS of drugs for financing terrorism...when it is the federal LAWS that actually dramatically boost the money to terrorists.)
4) Legalization promotes safe use. Needles can be clean. Cocaine/marijuana impurities can be eliminated. Doses can be controlled to "safe" amounts. (Just like cigarettes, there may be no truly "safe" amount of many drugs.)
But as *I* said, that is simply not possible. It is simply not possible to "revere the law" while "wiping (away)...the Constitution." The Constitution is THE law. In order to "revere the law," one MUST "revere the Constituiton." And one cannot "revere the Constitution" and deliberately (or even through ignorance) violate it!
This has absolutely nothing to do with the "left". This has everything to do with the future of America's children. Fatty foods and illicit drugs have nothing in common and to make such a link, shows a shallow understanding of the serious issue of drug abuse in America.
Only if you also ignore the lawlessness (e.g. Al Capone corrupting police and politicians, and murdering people) created by Prohibition.
And in any case, the War on Some Drugs is NOT like alcohol Prohibition...because no Constitutional amendment has been passed to prohibit any drugs, like was done for alcohol. So the War on Some Drugs is completely in violation of The Law.
The accounts of the evidence presented by Anslinger, and his testimony before Congress are readily available on the net. Can you point to any of it that would stand up as objectively defensible arguments? Nixon commissioned research into the effects of marijuana, and then threw it out because it didn't support his pre-conceived ideas. Our drug policy is closer to being based on "Reefer Madness" than the available research.
The reality is, in fact, that more than a few libertarians I've debated here admit using marijuana. Not all of them. But pretty sizeable percentage.
Now it's my turn to 'pull a Roscoe'..lol. Do you have a source for this?
The total number of people killed on 9/11 was approximately 3000. Drunk drivers killed 19,900 people in the United States in 1991 (the latest year for which I have data).
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.