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.
We've been here before Eagle Eye. I've made no false statements. Open a dictionary and look up "libertarian". My Merriam-Webster says, a libertarian is, a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty, especially of thought and action.
Sorry, I can't agree. Libertarians do believe in the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of men. The rule of law means that the government must obey its own rules, whereas the rule of man means that people are at the arbitrary whims of whoever is in power.
Let me ask you, do you feel the government scrupulously follows its own rules? I don't. When I read about the campaign finance reform act that Rush signed I am left wondering what our representatives think "Congress shall make no law" means. Apparently, they think it means "shall make no law, unless we think it sounds like a really good idea at the time."
To continue, libertarians know our freedoms are bounded by that of others. I am not an extremist, I am a moderate. I repudiate the anarchist-leaning libertarians from taking positions I feel aren't in line with constitutional republicanism. This may mean I am not a "real" libertarian, but that is not the point. The point is that you do not have to be a radical to oppose prohibition. I'll say that again. You don't have to be a radical, nor do you have to believe in total legalization to oppose prohibition.
Because they advocate things that will destroy our society, that's why. They and their ideas are repulsive and insane.
You may be a satirist, and I'm just not quick enough to appreciate your mordant wit.
OTOH, you may be as much of a fatuous white-shoe country-club 'Pubbie as you appear.
Either way, your empty platitudes are the emptiest I've ever seen, and that's no empty compliment.
Your latest post is surely the 'Gold Standard' of fatuity.
-- Sam Adams
LOL
I thought so...do a Google search on 'barratry'.
The ideology contained in the Libertarian Platform is part of an extreme political agenda, that has no chance of ever being taken seriously in America. Rick Stanley will never be a Senator from Colorado, and he will never, ever be, POTUS.
And most states have dealt with these issues in their bills of rights. The states are supposed to be 50 free republics not 50 wild experiments in unlimited majoritarian socialism.
California (Section 24): "This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people."
Maryland (Article 45): "This enumeration of Rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the People."
New Jersey (Section 21): "This enumeration of rights and privileges shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people."
That, of course, supposes that the legal system has not been corrupted by the same lust for power. The Supreme Court has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted to interpret the Constitution accurately. Roe v. Wade is a perfect example. (Actually, the job of the SCOTUS is to interpret law in light of the Constitution, not to interpret the Constitution itself)
The ultimate form of checks and balances lies with an armed populace. Virtually all of the debates we have on this forum can be linked to the government's encroachment on the 2nd Amendment protection of our right to keep and bear arms. If the government can disarm us, they can govern with complete autonomy. We would have no recourse. Lawyers and lawsuits against the government would be meaningless.
I've always loved that quote. Here's a Sam Adams bump.
The pro-dopers revere the Constitution only when it furthers their "Let's get high!" agenda. Otherwise, they're content to use that grand document to line bird cages or to roll their joints in. - KC -
---------------------------------
The constitutional basics ARE obvious. --- Congress is limited as to what it can 'legislate' in the commerce clause in very clear language. Drug prohibitions are NOT included in those powers.
Look at the only support you have RM, a crazed 'anti-doper', barely able to post. You are losing all credibility.
Don't you third party malcontents get it, yet? The world isn't a perfect place and the people who populate it, aren't perfect either. You guys are dense, dense, dense!!! All you do, is point fingers and claim corruption throughout the federal government. This is typical, doom and gloom-the sky is falling rhetoric, from people who have no answers, but enjoy fingering those people, who may disagree with them.
If that's what you believe, then run for cover "chicken little" and take all the other little "chicks" with you. Let the adults handle the tough stuff. The Founding Fathers didn't cut and run when the going got tough. This conservative ain't pointing fingers and isn't running from anything. You guys are truely lost and have no understanding of American politics, or how to make the system work for you.
The idea that our second amendment rights are more important then any other of our Constitutional rights, is ridiculous. The entire Constitution is critical to the survival of our Republic. Take away our freedom of speech, or freedom of religion and there will be upheaval throughout the land.
I know you wouldn't use the dictionary to define a political conservative so why would you use it to define another political philosophy? C'mon, WWRD?
(What Wouls Rush Do?)
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.