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 sure am glad we gave up on alcohol prohibition :).
Heck, let's get the sharpshooter liquored-up or stoned first just to show how truly impressive his aim and control are.
Shazzam! Isn't Liberdopia a fun place to live? Until you actually kill or injure someone, you're safely "in the zone" of unalienable rights.
And if you fail? Well, that's why taxpayers exist: to clean up and pay for your messes after you.
Of course you do. It't the nanny government socialist in you peering out from behind the mask of libertarianism.
You are all for allowing pople to get stinking drunk or stoned and allowing others to pay for the consequences. Admit it: you prefer that devil over the devil of prohibition. Just be honest and admit it. That's all we ask of you nanny government pro-dope socialists--just a little bit of honesty.
These two blatant lies throw every other statement made by the author into doubt.
The weed of the '60s and '70s was every bit as good, if not better, than anything sold today. It was easy to smuggle, there were few people trying to interdict it, and outstanding quality was readily available. This "more potent" crap is a myth invented by the drug warriors to justify their JBT tactics and the rape of our civil liberties.
The second lie is the "addictive" nature of marijuana. There has never been a credible study showing it to be physically addictive. EVER ! There was one study conducted that showed it to be toxic, though. When they fed cats 2 to 4 OUNCES of HASHISH per kilogram of body weight, the cats died. The fact that this would be equivalent to a normal man eating 14-1/2 POUNDS of hashish never seemed to dawn on them. Anybody with any experience regarding marijuana would find this utterly ridiculous - a regular, heavy user could smoke an ounce of hashish in a month. Eating 14-1/2 pounds is about as likely as unassisted space travel.
The weak sisters who claim psychological addiction are those wimps who are always looking for someone else to be at fault, and who won't take responsibility for their actions.
The LP's position on drugs is correct. While the author does accurately state the LP position in her first two paragraphs, her refutation contains unproven opinions and some blatant falsehoods, like the two above.
Their attendance at FReeper events is also extremely rare. More and more of us are realizing their attempt.
That's a strawman argument. Once you are interacting in public with fellow citizens, safety laws are completely valid. You are in direct contact with other citizens, and the possibility of negligence on your part causing another person harm is acutely viable. There is a world of difference between a law governing direct public conduct and a law governing public contact twice removed. In other words, it is completely reasonable to tell someone who is driving on a public road to follow laws put in place to ensure a greater degree of safety. It is NOT at all reasonable to tell that person that they cannot own a car at all because they may use the road and may cause injury when doing so.
I'll hit the other points shortly, but let me just thank you for being civil and keeping this a true debate. Dealing with a lunatic like Curry reminds me that's not always easy.
A few thousand more users, a few tens of thousand fewer gov't employees. Seems like a good tradeoff.
But does that mean that people who smoke pot will ingest more thc, or does it simply mean that they will smoke less to get the desired effect? If someone goes out to a bar and asks for a beer, and the barkeep says "Sorry, the tap's broken, would you like something else?" he's not going to say "Okay, give me a mug of bourbon".
So far,I haven't heard of anyone trying it. Why could that be?
Here's a question. Should people who drink be allowed to own firearms?
While the University of Mississippi may be getting their weed out of roadside ditches, I can't say for sure. I can say for sure that I knew three extremely regular users in the early 1970s who were unable to finish a single "pinner" (very thin joint) between them of some marijuana available then. Its pedigree was known, it was not laced or adulterated. I know of another fella, renowned in my school days as the quintessential "overindulger", who always used twice as many intoxicants as his friends, who stopped smoking some hashish after seven "tokes" - because he was getting way too high. This also was in the early seventies.
The "potency" MYTH is a justification for the ludicrous, un-Constitutional, civil-liberties-destroying, STUPID War on Some Drugs. Its premise is utterly flawed, its results horrendous and its continuation lunacy. The LP is right.
And before one of our resident Warriors stoops to the slur, yes I am a drug user - tobacco, tea and coffee, along with the occasional recreational aspirin. Tylenol and Ibuprofen are too "hard" for my taste.
Jay Santos of the "Citizen's Auxillary Police" who frequently appears as a guest on the Phil Hendrie call in radio show claims to do this all the time. You should hear the outrage of the befuddled soccer mom/dad-church lady/men callers when Jay tells them that his group (easily distinguished by their blue arm bands and large pith helmets) are conducting inspections in the callers' neighborhoods! What's most amazing is that most of these callers will gladly allow an LAPD costumed person to inspect their dirty laundry--but not some nut with a blue arm band and a pith helmet. Even they have their limits!
If spirituality and morality are your true concerns, then why don't you get out there and spread the Good Word and win some hearts and souls to Jesus to help them forsake sinful ways?
The fact that you rely on government to do for you what you should be doing yourself indicates your unwillingness or ineptness at winning souls and changing hearts.
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.