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.
You had better ask yourself and your fellow liberdopians that question. That is exactly where your brainless pursuit of d-r-u-u-u-u-u-u-ugs is taking us. The People's Republic of Kalifornia is your model.
You are George Soros's useful idiots. Every Marxist revolution needs a battalion of such dipsticks to undermine and weaken the traditional morality of the targeted citizenry.
No, it is not. It is a depressant.
But, sitting on the fence as we have will only perpetuate the mistakes of the past and optimize drug dealer’s profits.
No, we don't. Given that the great majority of illegal drugs flow into this country through international borders, interdiction and control is absolutely and indisputably federal matter.
Well, I guess the pro-dopers will dispute it. But what do you expect from them?
Any answer as to whether you believe that drinkers should lose their 2nd amendment rights? Do you support alcohol prohibition?
Let us know where you sand, Curry.
Ah, and thank you for proving my point. No government eh?
Gotta love these guys' logic. No narcs = no gov't ! Not even Anslinger was that bold, all he was worried about was his job
Well OK, I'll readily admit you guys would want some residue of a gov't in place, but I wonder, would you guys toss the Navy Seals too? Or how about the Army Rangers? No?What about Special Command? After all, you're gonna find an immense amount of "governing" there.
You can't make this stuff up
Would you allow airport security guards to smoke pot/crack/shoot-up whatever on their spare time? What about CIA ops? Police officers?
What they do on their spare time is not my concern, as long as they're alert on the job.
With a Lib in the oval office, I'd give it 2 yrs till we'd have Chinamen right at our front gates.
With a drug warrior like x42 (like it or not, he and the Butcher of Waco imprisoned more people for 'drug crimes' than anyone else in history) in the WH we had Chinamen in the Oval Room paying bribes.
Interdiction and control at the borders and actual commerce occuring across state lines falls withing federal jurisdiction. When you start talking about potentially interstate potential commerce, you've reduce "regulate commerce among the serveral states" to "regulate everything". If they'd meant "regulate everything" they'd have said "regulate everything".
Using the above condition, anything can be banned or regulated by the feds simply because it is "transported in interstate commerce." Given that, the 18th Amendment would not have been needed to ban alcoholic beverages. Congress could have simply banned alcohol under the guise of protecting interstate commerce. But it should be pointed out that even the well-meaning, misguided people pushing for prohibition at least seemed to grasp the concept of constitutional interpretation. They realized that in order to give the federal government new powers, the Constitution itself had to be properly amended. That isn't the case any longer. Now, Congress does what it wants with impunity because there is hardly anyone left who is willing to take a hard stand on constitutional interpretation.
The "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses have been the biggest loopholes used by the federal government to get around constitutional obstacles. Republicans and Democrats use them all the time. They fail to understand that providing for the general welfare includes only those powers enumerated in the Constitution. They also overlook the fact that interstate commerce means exactly that—commerce between the states. Under the original intent of the framers, Congress essentially had the power to crack (no pun intended) down on anything that would hinder free trade among the states. It originally had nothing to do with what kind of substance should or should not be allowed to cross state lines.
If you really want the federal government to have the power to ban illicit drugs within U.S. borders and also maintain your constitutional principles, push for an amendment that bans the manufacture, transportation, sale and use of illicit drugs. At least that would be intellectually honest. Anything short of that is to allow a usurpation of power by the very government designed to protect the integrity of the Constitution. Truth be told, I fear the abuse of power by the government more than I fear the abuse of drugs by its citizens.
Then again, since no one seems to be exercising their obligation to read and interpret the Cosntitution for themselves and hold their elected officials accountable, we all might as well be stoned out of our gourds and just let the government do what it wants.
Your recorder seems stuck on 'druuuuugs'.
Congrats! Now you're making some sense. At least your qualifying this remark, as only your opinion. Because in the bigger context, it definitely doesn't fit into the catagory of factual reality.
Well, we are no longer governed by the rule of law.
And in my opinion, the United States is actually headed AWAY from the rule of law, rather than towards it.
America is a society that has always been based on the rule of law. Libertarians do not support the rule of law, or the will of the people, has represented through their elected officials. Libertarians want absolute and unrestricted liberty, as in no limitations on individuals and their personal behavior. Such extremism, will only lead to chaos and anarchy.
But I'm an optimist.
Very funny. In my time on Freerepublic, you're one of the most pessimistic individuals I've ever come across.
After this point, your post becomes irrational, illogical and convoluted. More endless libertarian rhetoric. Its impossible to have any further reasonable communication with you. But I wish you well.
I suggest you put another log on the fire and relax.
Nevertheless, I'm am not interested in being taxed, charged, threatened or penalized because of reduced productivity,improper behavior, addiction, abuse intervention or hospitalization that is a result of someone else wanting to get high. I believe that unrestricted recreational drug usage will be to my disadvantage. Restriction of drug usage can be accomplished without resorting to a "Nanny state" or unconstitutional laws.
Whenever I see an extremely moderate and well-reasoned post(like this one!), I am reminded of the famous short film, 'Bambi Meets Godzilla'.
The prognosis for Bambi is all too certain.
Between the sophistical pleadings of those who feed off the public teat, and the delusional ravings of those who have drunk too deeply of the JBT Brand Koolaid, there is little space for rationality, judgment, or principle in the debate over the WOD.
But a good post, nonetheless. ;^)
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.