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.
There's another poster here who has the same childlike faith in lawyers and politicians that you do.
You seem to share the naive belief that 'My government wouldn't lie to me'.
And, FWIW, I believe that not a few of you pro-'WOD' posters have substance abuse problems of your own.
The reality is, in fact, that more than a few Republicans admit using marijuana. Including the former Speaker of the House, and the current President of the United States. I guess that would make them "anti-drug dopeheads," right?
Mark (Libertarian...never smoked marijuana, never smoked a single cigarette.)
lol, of course I do.
Various state and local governments, the National Highway Safety Administration, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (yes, there is such a department of our government, probably a waste of money and/or redundant), Department of Transportation, National Transportation and Safety Bureau, the Centers for Disease Control, etc.
If you want websites, statistics of alcohol-related accidents, etc. I can dig it up or you can check google and do a few searches.
Yes, but The People have also placed restrictions on the government. (Unfortunately, the government gives The People the finger, and does what it wants.) Those restrictions are in the Constitution...including the 10th Amendment. The People's representatives have the authorized power to criminalize drugs at the local or state level. They do NOT have that legitimate power at the federal level, absent a Constitutional amendment.
Sure, liberal Republicans like Michael Bloomberg have proudly admitted their marijuana use. What's surprising about that?
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.
Your minority opinion is noted, for the record.
Now onto the facts.
America's current national drug control policy, is part of the National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 and is based on the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. There is nothing unconstitutional about this policy. Link here to the CSA of 1970 and link here to the USSC decision. Tobey v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991) that supports the CSA of 1970.
The basic constitutionality of the act is not addressed because it is not even arguable. Congress can legislate under the Commerce Clause. The ONLY issue was one of delegation, can Congress delegate it's legislative authority to an executive-branch agency. Again, under fairly settled law, Congress can so long as it limits the discretion of the agency and provides the overall structure/guidance to the agency in the grant of delegation, and so long as the agency follows established principles of administrative law (due process, review and comment, etc).
And honest conservative Republicans, like Newt Gingrich and G.W. Bush, admit their marijuana use. (Though G.W. Bush is NOT willing to admit to his cocaine use.)
Another stupid liberdopian argument. But then, is there any other kind?
Complete BS. Why do you think the government didn't regulate alcohol under the Commerce Clause, but instead passed a Constitutional amendment. (The answer is obvious: they FOLLOWED The Law for alcohol, and BROKE it for other drugs.)
The Controlled Substances Act is NOT Constitutional! Anybody who can actually read the Constitution (and the supporting material of those who wrote the Constitution) should be able to see that. Or else they need a remedial reading course.
With that ridiculous remark, any credibility in your argument, just went out the window.
So! You are part of the Dark Side!
Now I understand why you won't answer any of my questions.
I hope they pay you enough to compensate for the loss of your eternal soul.
What the #%@$ are you babbling about? I wasn't even addressing you...I was addressing "Ol' Sparky"...who wrote that Libertarians were "pro-drug dopers" because (he wrote) that "most" of them (that he has corresponded with) use marijuana.
I was simply pointing out two of the MILLIONS of "anti-drug doper" Republicans who have used marijuana.
IMO legalization in some form with some kind of taxation would save money, and it would not make the problems we have now worse.
Your point is noted. And I agree. I've seen data that show reduced alcohol consumption during Prohibition, too. But that's a silly reason to call Prohibition a "success"...unless reduced usage is the SOLE factor in your definition of "success."
(You can always tell the savages when they use abstract words like Society and Community as subjects of verbs, and attribute states of mind or benefits to it. "Society needs...", "Society wants...", et cetera. It would be easier to counter if they would use golden calves and totems like the old school.)
It's not about preserving a free state, it's about using guns to make people obey and placate the tribal god. That's "the law"!
Of course its constitutional. If it weren't, it would have been overturned long ago. Not every law you disagree with, is unconstitutional. I believe Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. So far my side has had no success turning that decision around in the USSC. The same is true of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. You can moan and groan all you want, it will get you nowhere.
Anybody who can actually read the Constitution (and the supporting material of those who wrote the Constitution) should be able to see that.
This is very easy to understand. The Constitution is the only lawful document, that guides the Congress in its law making and governance of the USA. There is no supporting material written by anyone, that is considered part of the Constitution. Period! No Federalist Papers, NO papers of Thomas Jefferson, NO papers of James Madison. Nothing!!! The Constitution is a stand alone document, from which all subsequent written law is based on.
Nervous Nellies? Don't you mean honest people?
My own opinion is that the gov't should be, by a Constitutional amendment, forbidden to tax any drug, including alcohol. Think of it as punishment for their previous lies.
Liberty is the liberdopians' fig-leaf. The gross ugly nakedness behind it is and always has been their overweening passion to score dope without fear of punishment.
Didn't you know, the idea behind prohibition was to stop people from drinking alcohol. In that regard, banning the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages, the act of prohibition, was a success. I don't consider the actions of a criminal element, to be a factor in the original reasoning behind the 18th amendment, nor did criminal activities have any bearing behind the 21st amendment.
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.