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.
According to you, everything is lost, period. The Constitution has been trashed, the government is filled with idiots, the American people are a bunch of foolish, idiotic sheeple, President Bush is a corrupt tyrant and I don't know what I'm talking about, but you do. Did I about cover it? I think so.
I think you're looking at 21st century America, through historical events of the 18th and 19th centuries. In other words, you're living in th past. That may be okay for you, just don't expect the rest of us to live in the same world you've chosen to call home.
Here are a few facts.
The Constitution defines the fundamental law of the United States federal government and the essential principle that government must be confined to the rule of law. The Constitution represents a set of general principles out of which the implimentation of statutes and codes have emerged. The success of the Constitution, in remaining the foundation of American government, is based on the ability of successive Congresses and Courts, to be able to interpret it or readapt it to the demands of changing times. Contributions to Constitutional interpretation, are set by precedent, custom and usage.
Constitutional powers have provided for the creation of the "federal budget system, executive departments, federal courts, new states and territories, and controlling presidential succession". Article I, section 8, states that Congress shall have the authority "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" the various powers allotted to the federal government by the Constitution. Other practices based on custom and usage have become practically unassailable and have been recognized as valid extensions of Constitution interpretation: political parties, procedures for nominating presidential candidates, the electoral college system, the appointment of a presidential cabinet.
Your absolute view of the Constitution, isn't consistent with the view of other American's. If the Founding Fathers were around today and were presented with the facts of events, covering the last 225 years, I don't think many of them, would side with you. Now, that may be somewhat presumptuous on my part, but whose to say I'm wrong and whose to say you're right.
Please be more original than "caffine or nicotine"! Neither of those are intoxicants unless consumed in near lethal dosage which is very unlikely...in the short run.
"Show me where in the constitution where it says Windsong gets to dictate what drugs people can and cannot take take."
Contrary to your anarchistic notions of right and wrong, what people do in the privacy of their own living rooms, especially where drugs are concerned, DO affect the rest of us. You libs constantly harp about how you dont want the government intruding into our private lives, yet strangely expect us to foot your bill for drug abuse. Why don't you show me where in the Constitution it grants you the right to not only destroy your own life, but mine and my kids as well. Show me where it says you can sniff as many lines of crack cocaine you want. Show me where it says you are entitled to grow marijuana in your own backyard.
Until then, America has enough nutcases running around without adding a few thousand more by making drugs legal.
"The ONLY one willing to fight the good fight for our rights"
And of course, smoke dope. :)
I'd have to say there is at least one other group - Those that oppose in on Constitutional grounds because of it's reliance on abuse of the Commerce Clause. While you may agree with the end, the chosen means serves to legitimize and help perpetuate the left's abuse of that same clause, and serves to advance FDR's New Deal policies and doctrines.
I don't think we've seen any evidence whatsoever that anyone is being discouraged at all. If I'm wrong and you can provide such evidence, please do. Pretty much everyone who wants to do drugs in this country does them. I sincerely doubt there are any adults in this country saying, "Boy, I'd really like to do some cocaine right now, but I'm afraid to deal with the ruffians that sell it."
My response to you about black markets was that the black markets for tobacco and alcohol are very small because both of those products are cheap (competitively priced) and widely available. Both are more widely abused than any illegal drugs in this country. They are abused because of their addictive nature, their price and their availability. For the most part illegal drugs are abused because of their addictive nature, why would you want to knock down the two remaining barriers?
There are many, many reasons, but let's go with the one that seems to be the most oft-repeated misconception by WOD'ers: "Use" does not equal "abuse". There are Americans in this country who regularly drink alcohol to excess and become unable to function in society as a result. There are others who occassionally drink alcohol in a responsible manner. The numbers are far less for tobacco, but the pattern holds true: There are some who smoke to excess for decades and die as a result, and others who occassionally smoke a cigarette or cigar (usually while drinking), or smoke for a short period of time and then quit.
Whether any pro Wo(s)D-ers choose to admit it or not, the same holds true for many currently illegal drugs, most notably marijuana and ecstacy. Some use excessively, to the point of legitimate abuse that hinders their ability to live a normal life. Many do not, and occassionally use the drug on a few weekends per year, in much the way many responsible adults use alcohol or tobacco. Some cocaine users fall into a dark pattern and eventually commit crimes to support their habit. Others do not.
To suppress the rights of all to avoid the excesses of some is not in any way an idea that conservatives should support. You may scoff at the notion, but it is exactly the same idea that could easily remove guns, tobacco, and unhealthy foods away from you in the future.
When the Toon was in office, he'd always wait until the poll results and focus group information came back to decide where he stood on a particular issue. Reminded me of the Hindmost (not to mention being two-faced). Not sheeple, Puppeteers.
It isn't about "liberty." It never was and never will be. It is about the freedon to get stinking drunk or high at someone else's expense and pretend that no one else in inconvenienced or harmed.
Hey, Komrade truenospinzone, Kommissar George Soros is proud of your efforts on behalf of the nannyland.
No other option makes any sense whatsoever. No one could possibly contribute so little to so many honest discussions without an ulterior motive. No one could possibly write so many words and say so very little without an illicit cause. No one could possibly do so much to undermine and lampoon a stance without being fully aware of it.
Then you don't like DUI and speed zone laws either. After all, some people can rip through a school zone drunk at 40 mph and never injure a child, let alone kill one.
In the name of "liberty" you would prohibit all laws that restrict the one exceptional citizen in a thousand who might be able to safely negotiate his way through devastation, or--if devastation results--can pick up the tab out of his own pocket.
Meanwhile the 800 who believe they can do the same, but cannot (dopers and drunks always grossly overestimate their abilities while smashed or stoned) would kill and destroy with reckless abandon and leave everyone else to pay the bills. That's not a problem in a nanny state, you see. Simply tax everyone else to pay the bills, and while you're at it treat the user/abuser as a "victim" in his own right and send him to tax-supported rehab.
The liberdopian mantra: "Drugs, drugs, drugs. Gimme drugs, drugs, drugs. But it ain't about drugs. It's about liberty. So gimme . . . drugs, drugs, drugs. If I kill or harm someone or damage their property, it wasn't me that did it. It was the drugs, drugs, drugs. I'm a victim, so pay up and make me better. Then gimme . . . more drugs, drugs, drugs."
Exactly how is it constitutional? The Constitution certainly gives the federal government control over the importation of drugs (under Article I, Sec. 8), but I hardly see how that applies to things like the Controlled Substances Act. If federal drug policy is allowed to stand, there is no end to what powers they can take away from the states. In my opinion, that is more detrimental to society than drugs.
The above article points to the Netherlands as an example of the problems of rampant drug use and the conclusions of the author are probably correct, but such problems should be addressed at the state level. Are you comfortable with what the federal government has already done with tobacco? Where do we draw the line in regards to government expansion?
Your petulance exposes your first grade intellect and pre-school mentality.(my apologies to elementary school children)
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.