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'm in favor of legalizing cannabis, and decriminalizing possession of personal use amounts of other substances.
I know.
It's hard to imagine any sentient soul arguing that one has a fundamental unalienable right to blow dope.
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.
Worth repeating. Thanks Kevin.
Representative gov't throughout history?
Through thousands of years, society has more often then not, placed reasonable restrictions on people, through basic moral and ethical considerations.
And there were no drug prohibitions, nowhere, nowhen (with the possible exception of the opium war when the Brits were trying to get China hooked) until the so-called 'progressive era', aka early US socialism. And there was no MJ prohibition anywhere, through all of history, until Anslinger and FDR during the 'new deal', aka maturing US socialism.
So what? This is of no concern whatsoever to the gov't.
Bwaahahahahaha! That's good! You're just like the good folks in Animal Farm who read the new commandments: "Four legs good, two legs better."
Instead of (foolishly) trusting the idiots on the Supreme Court (or worse, the idiot Presidents or Congresscritters)...why not simply READ the Constitution (and the supporting literature)?
If you do that, you'll see that there is no way in h@ll that the Founding Fathers ever intended the commerce clause to be used such that certain substances were BANNED...from interstate traffic, or ESPECIALLY from production within states (as cocaine, marijuana, LSD, etc. ALL are).
The Commerce Clause was intended to "make regular" commerce among the "several states"...in the same way a LAXATIVE makes one "regular." Congress was given that power in order to INCREASE commerce among the "several states"...NOT to decrease (or especially BAN) commerce.
One can see that the Commerce Clause was intended to INCREASE commerce among the "several states," because the Articles of Confederation did NOT have such a Congressional power...and the states RESTRICTED commerce more than the Founding Fathers desired.
There is no supporting material written by anyone, that is considered part of the Constitution.
If you totally ignore the supporting documentation, you end up not understanding what the Constitution even means. You come up with your COMPLETELY WRONG understanding of "regulate commerce among the several states," for example.
Or you end up with the completely non-sensical idea that Congress can do ANYTHING that promotes the "general welfare."
Read the Constitution. Read the supporting literature (including simply American history). You'll see that there's no way in h@ll that the Constitution gives Congress the legitimate power to regulate ANY drug. That's precisely why an amendment was necessary for alcohol Prohibition. (Given your WRONG interpretation, do you think that the 18th Amendment was not necessary? Do you think Congress simply could have passed the Volstead Act, without a supporting Constitutional amendment?)
If you're in favor of anything short of complete elimination of all federal laws and regulations on all drugs, you're not in favor of following the Constitution. The Constitution gives the federal government absolutely NO power to criminalize or regulate any drug. The 10th Amendment forbids it, in fact.
With me, you're arguing with a person who has (apparently) forgotten more about American history and the Constitution than you've yet learned.
You too, Kevin Curry. (You idiot.)
You have no respect for people with which you disagree.
Thank You. I have believed for quite some time that some of our more strident, foaming at the mouth, anti-libertarian, pro-WOD, pro-jack booted thug types here are not what they claim.
The REAL Demorat disruptors are NOT the hit-and-run types that sign up, post some quickie anti-Republican garbage on multiple threads, and get quickly banned. Those guys are fun, but hardly the real disruptor threat.
The real Demonrat disruptors, IMO, are the deep cover ones with early sign-on dates, whose positions on certain issues are a little to close to the Hollywood stereotype of an "evil" conservative Republican, if ya know what I mean.
However, they are given away, for in their poor attempt at reproducing a Hollweird conservative stereotype, they actually fall into the big-government fawning, socialist camp.
"I know."
You are an insincere troller, and a lawyer, and a RINO.
Hey, you're the whole package! A career in government awaits you!(as if you weren't already sucking off the life-juices of the country)
Gingrich took the position while in Congress that drug dealers should be executed.
Trying it and legalizing it are to different issues. Only a fool would argue that is should be legalized. Legalization or decriminalization of marijuana has been a disaster everywhere it's been tried.
Like in the US from 1776 until 1937
So what? This is of no concern whatsoever to the gov't.
So what?! Alcohol abuse was a concern to society, which made it a concern to the government. If it was no concern to society, the 18th amendment would never have passed into law.
Keyphrase is "federal" laws, hey?
Interesting point about the 10th, yet, some would say that it's debatable whether or not complete elimination of all federal laws and regulations would promote the general welfar... but I get what your saying about leaving it up to the States. I have mixed feelings about the FDA's process for approving new drugs and how they're scheduled, for instance, but I think we're better off overall with the approval process.
Only a fool (or an ignoramous) would support the federal government being involved in the regulation of any drug (absent a Constitutional amendment...which no wise person would support).
Gingrich took the position while in Congress that drug dealers should be executed.
Gingrich was a corrupt @ss. Just like G.W. Bush, and everyone in his Administration.
No person who takes an OATH to follow the Constitution, and then violates that oath, is worth even a bucket of warm spit.
True. The one thing I have always noticed about our militant pro-WOD, anti-libertarians is that, for the most part, their profile pages are either totally blank, or devoid of any sort of personal information, despite the fact that some of them have been around since 1998 or 99.
I mean, all my page tells you is where I live and where I'm from, but at least it's something. Wierd, dontch think?
Those who make their living from lawsuits and government favor will feel the full fury of an angry and aggrieved populace.
I sincerely hope the b*stards who are imposing Federal Socialism on Americans receive their historical due soon.
Yes, "federal" is the key...because the 10th Amendment is absolutely clear about what Congress made address, and what it may not.
...UNLESS one wishes to assert that there is a right, under the 9th Amendment, to put into one's body whatever one desires, as long as one isn't hurting someone else.
In my opinion, arguing that one has that right under the 9th Amendment, would potentially involve judicial activism. I would expect that there were state or local laws, at the time the Constitution was written, that prohibitted the use of...alcohol, for instance. If so, then an argument under the 9th amendment would be judicial activism, which I don't support.
...some would say that it's debatable whether or not complete elimination of all federal laws and regulations would promote the general welfare...
As I pointed out previously, the Constitution does NOT authorize Congress to do anything that is in the "general welfare" of the people. The Constitution ONLY authorizes the Congress to do the "general welfare" items that are SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED (listed) in Article I, Section 8 (e.g., "coin money and regulate the value thereof," or "establish Post Offices."
I have mixed feelings about the FDA's process for approving new drugs and how they're scheduled, for instance, but I think we're better off overall with the approval process.
This reminds me of something I read from my mother just last night. She said that, even though the Constitution forbids it, it's probably still good that the federal government owns national parks or wilderness areas. But she was wrong. (Doesn't happen too often. ;-)) And you are wrong. We're NEVER "better off" when the federal government violates The Law. Because when they do it on one thing, and people don't complain/agitate/revolt until they STOP, they are just encouraged to violate The Law on something else.
If we're indeed "better off" with the FDA (not possible, in my opinion), it would ONLY be true if there was first (or second) a Constitutional amendment to allow the FDA.
The federal goverment should follow The Law. No exceptions. Instead, they virtually never follow The Law. And it's costing us, big-time (25% of our income, to start with).
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.