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 can only conclude that you are channelling FDR.
I have never seen such a smarmy rationale for the abuse of the Constitution as you present.
So how's Eleanor?
Can't say the same about drugs, now can you?
When it says "Congress shall make no law" is it an extremist view to understand the constitution to actually mean that Congress shall make no law? Why a document written in the English language actually needs interpretation is beyond me.
When the constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed, for example, a thousand constitutional attornies dance on the head of a pin to explain why my right to keep and bear arms may be infringed after all.
In my humble opinion, this is the root of our downfall. Not pot smoking. The root of our downfall is that we have been taught that the constitution means only what legal experts tell us it means, in the face of plain language.
Libertarian's believe in the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty. Such principles, if implimented, would lead to a loosening of ethical and moral standards and that would lead to social chaos and eventual anarchy.
Libertarian's support the legalization of drugs and prostitution, the dismantling of America's criminal justice system and military armed forces and they support unrestricted trade and immigration. These policies are extreme and again, if implimented, would be disasterous for all Americans. It clearly demonstrates that libertarian's don't have a clue about politics, or governing. The libertarian agenda is supported by less then 1/2% of voting Americans, thereby assuring, they will never have a voice at the table of government. Until libertarians abandon this extremist agenda, they won't ever win any significant elections and they will never hold the reigns of power and influence in America. In addition, the Libertarian Party supports abortion rights, which is clearly not a traditional American value.
America's national drug control policy is here to stay. These drugs are harmful substances and have no place in society. Anyone who has followed the government's drug control efforts over the last 20 years knows what the real facts are. While there has been steady use of illegal drugs by adolescents throughout the 1990s adn into the 21st century, overall drug use in America has been significantly reduced in the last two decades. The decreases in illegal drug use, can be directly traced to successful efforts by law enforcement and through increases in tough sentencing measures by our criminal justice system. Our national drug control policy has been successful and Americans believe intervention and incareration are still the primary steps at reducing drug abuse .
Translation...'legal experts' = 'lawyers'
'Nuff said.
Oh, and Franklin...er 'Reagan Man', how's Fala? ...Oh, that's right...all dogs go to Heaven. Sorry for asking.
I'm no advocate of drug abuse, no matter what misguided notions you have, but I'm also no advocate of the government creating and enforcing vice laws between consenting adults. This not a theocracy and you don't have a right to have the government enforce your brand of morality. You may not be concerned about the peripheral issues of losing Constitutional rights in the process of eradicating drugs, but I am. I resent that you are willing to turn over your rights as well as others' in the hope of increased security.
Why is it that parents and private groups have failed so miserably in keeping kids off of drugs? Can we blame the government for that somehow?
I note that your essay treats a soft drug more harshly and misleadingly than it does hard drugs. All in all, a very good ad for the hard drug alcohol industry.
I took that to mean that alcohol is by your defintion a "hard drug". My question was hence, if you believe that, then what intoxicant aside from pot would you purport to be soft?
If I misunderstood you, my apologies. I was on drugs at the time...LOL. Advil...Diet Dr. Pepper...
I only have time to deal with some of your comments over my lunchtime. I hope to address others later.
I think its fair to say, we agree on a few points. Americans are subject to excessive taxation and the federal...
I don't see how you can "agree" with me that the taxation is "excessive," unless you agree with me that the federal government is acting outside the Constitution. If the federal government is acting within the Constitution, all our federal taxes are "necessary and proper" per Article I, Section 8. I only think federal taxation is "excessive" because I think the federal government is acting outside the Constitution. (And not just a little bit outside either. In my opinion, fully 80-90+% of what the federal government does is outside the Constitution.)
According to you, everything is lost, period.
Well, we are no longer governed by the rule of law. That is an inescapable conclusion, if one thinks, as I do, that 80-90+% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. (Including, specifically, ALL federal laws and regulations regarding ALL drugs.) Now, whether we can return to the rule of law is an interesting question. (Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times.") And in my opinion, the United States is actually headed AWAY from the rule of law, rather than towards it. But I'm an optimist. As long as there is a Libertarian Party in the United States, there's hope. :-) Or, if things get really bad, I could move to Costa Rica, where Libertarians have more than 10% of the seats in their Congress. :-)
The Constitution has been trashed,...
Of course it has. Once again, this is an inescapable conclusion, if one thinks that 80-90+% of what the federal government does violates the Constitution.
...the government is filled with idiots,
That is my charitable assessment. I'll address this later.
the American people are a bunch of foolish, idiotic sheeple,...
Well, certainly scores of millions of them are. But I should have included the thought that a great many others (possibly even a majority of The People) are simply "rationally ignorant." It's actually "rationally ignorant" for one to not worry if the federal government is ILLEGALLY taking 25% of one's income...if the costs of getting the federal government to stop doing that exceed the amount one could expect to recover.
...President Bush is a corrupt tyrant
Well, he could simply be an idiot. I ought to give him the benefit of the doubt. ;-) Maybe he can't read the Constitution, or any of the supporting literature. Still, one would hope/expect that he'd have someone on his staff who could read and explain the Constitution to him. :-/
...and I don't know what I'm talking about, but you do.
That's certainly true vis-a-vis whether or NOT (my emphasis) the federal government can legitimately criminalize drugs under the "commerce clause" of the Constitution. Once again, if you think that it's possible for the federal government to LEGITIMATELY criminalize any drug, under the Constitution, please explain to me why the 18th Amendment was (or wasn't) necessary to criminalize alcohol.
I don't think you can do that. That's why you're wrong, and I'm right (regarding federal criminalization of drugs).
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.
???? Why do you bring up all those things? When have I ever criticized those things as being unconstitutional? What about federal criminalization of drugs? THAT'S not "unassailable"...because it quite clearly VIOLATES the Constitution (absent a constitutional amendment, such as the 18th Amendment that prohibited alcohol).
Your absolute view of the Constitution, isn't consistent with the view of other American's.
These "other Americans"...they'd be the "foolish, idiotic" (or rationally ignorant) "sheeple"? Yes, I'm (painfully!) aware that my (correct) view of the Constitution isn't "consistent" with theirs.
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.
Of the 55 Founding Fathers who signed the Constitution, I'm reasonably sure that 54 of them would largely agree with my interpretation of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton probably wouldn't, but I never liked him anyway. ;-)
Now, that may be somewhat presumptuous on my part, but whose to say I'm wrong and whose to say you're right.
That's not presumptuous at all...to ask "who can say" that you're wrong and I'm right. In fact, I wouldn't consider it terribly presumptuous for YOU to say, "I'm right, and you're wrong." You'd be wrong, but not presumptuous. (You really ought to answer my question about the 18th amendment before you make any claim that you're right, and I'm wrong.)
Oops. Lunchtime is over.
That's an easily provable falsehood.
Why is it that some of you feel the need to make false statments and innuendos to make your points.
IMO, points that one has to lie to make aren't worth making.
I mentioned twice on this thread, the constitutional and legal aspects of America's drug control policy. I guess you didn't see them. Here they are again, for your benefit.
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).
There's one LITTLE problem with that. Alcohol is a narcotic. ("Narcotic" from the root, "numbing.") See my post #172.
You're right it's not arguable. It's unconstitutional, per the 10th Amendment. That's why a constitutional amendment was required to criminalize alcohol.
Or how a person can have cash confiscated from him, again without arrest, trial or conviction of crime, if the amount equals or exceeds whatever amount Congress deems unnaceptable just because the money might be from or intended for use in a crime?
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.