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 think you're the one with the poor eyesight. All you do is point fingers and incrimminate imperfect people who inhabite an imperfect system. At least there are people willing to put out the effort, to see that the system operates and functions. You offer no answers to the problems that America faces today, whether perceived or real. In that regard, you're nothing but a back-bench bomb thrower, without any ideas. A social malcontent, with an empty head.
You do? - How droll.
But there is no mystery to the answer. -- JR founded this site on the principle, much forgotten now, in all the partisan political bickering.
Constitutional restoration is the answer.
Society CAN change the rules, through its government. The Constitution gives Congress authority, to make and change the laws of the land, as they see fit. If you don't like the political makeup of the Congress, work to change the elected officiials who control it. I remind you, the Constitution isn't holy scripture. For the hundreth time, it doesn't take a constitutional amendment to create legislation or change existing law in America.
Of course it is. There is no good argument for ingesting illicit drugs and knowing your breaking the law, while doing it.
To love freedom and justice, and want it for oneself and ones fellow citizens is not immature
That's a long way from wanting to see illicit drugs legalized. Ingesting drugs like cocaine, heroin and marijuana, isn't a Constitutional right.
Like I said, growup already.
You can claim that "conservatism and libertarianism are both right" all you want. But, at the federal level, there is simply NO DOUBT. Conservatives (as in John-the-tyrant Ashcroft) are WRONG! (And I can't believe he doesn't know it. If he doesn't, he's an idiot.) There is NO authority, under the Constitution, for the FEDERAL government to criminalize the manufacture or possession of ANY drug.
Complete BS. Libertarians support the rule of law FAARRRRRR more than Republicans! It isn't even close!
Do you realize how absurd this sounds? I guess not.
It only sounds ridiculous to YOU, because you apparently know NOTHING of the positions of the Libertarian and Republican parties! Get a friggin' clue!
Social Security? Republicans for it, Libertarians would abolish it (just like the Founders).
Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare? Republicans for ALL of them, Libertarians would abolish ALL of them (just like the Founders!)
Federal ownership of land outside of Washington DC and military bases? Republicans for it, Libertarians would sell or give away EVERY SQUARE INCH of federal land outside Washington DC and military bases...JUST LIKE THE CONSTITUTION says!
Once again, since you seem so clueless: It is NOT EVEN CLOSE! Libertarians would cut the size of the federal government by 80-90%...and Republicans are making the federal government BIGGER! Do you not understand arithmetic???! We Libertarians REALLY want to take the federal government back to the size it was prior to the New Deal. You're absolutely INSANE if you think the Republican Party is interested in doing that!
Libertarians talk of dismantling the criminal justice system...
Complete BS. Prove it. Show me a Libertarian Party position that indicates something even CLOSE to "the criminal justice system should be dismantled." Again, that's BS. Protecting people from harm by other people is the ONE function of government, according to Libertarian principle.
...and abolishing victimless crimes,...
Yes, that would make a HUGE improvement in the criminal justice system! As Jefferson said, the proper function of government is to protect people from harm by others, and otherwise leave them to the own pursuits.
...as though crimes againmst society and government,
You are so clueless. Counterfeiting is a crime against (the federal) government. Libertarians absolutely support laws against counterfeiting. Treason is a crime against (the federal) government. Libertarians absolutely support laws against treason.
Violating (local/state) public health codes could reasonably be called a "crime against society" (it's much better to call it what it really is...a "crime against many individuals"). Libertarians absolutely support state and local public health laws (such as food preparation in sanitary conditions).
Jefferson said: "The fundamental principle of the government is that the will of the majority is to prevail."
Again, get a clue! He most certainly was NOT talking about a majority decision to deprive a person of Constitutional rights! There's a friggin' AMENDMENT process to do that! When the federal government has a law against me smoking crack (not that I'm interested even in smoking marijuana)...that is a violation of my RIGHTS, under the 10th amendment, to be free from federal government interference in that matter. There is NO WAY Jefferson was saying that a majority could legitimately vote to take away Constitutional rights! (Only a Constitutional amendment can do that!)
You (or friggin' John Ashcroft) want the FEDERAL government to criminalize drugs? Change the #$@% Constitution! Follow the @#$% law!
You're a born pessimist.
If I was "born" a pessimist, my extensive reading (of Julian Simon, among others) has made me quite optimistic. The entire course of history is headed towards Libertarianism. Like I said, Costa Rica just elected over 10 percent of their Congress with Libertarians. In the Netherlands, List Pim Fortuyn--the party in the Netherlands closest to Libertarians--has just scored a tremendous victory in elections...coming in essentially a 3-way tie for the 2nd largest party.
In the long run (50 years) essentially the whole planet will have moved dramatically towards Libertarianism. As it already has in the last 30 years, since our Party was founded. Because we Libertarians are right. About everything. The most efficient form of government is a government that protects people from harm by others, but otherwise leaves them alone. Simple economics shows that The People will tend towards the most efficient form of government. That's why so many economists (Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, and others) are libertarians.
And what point is that, tpaine?
To be free from FEDERAL laws against ingestion of drugs like cocaine, heroin, and marijuana IS a Constitutional right! And one which can NOT be legitimately taken away by a simple vote of Congress. That right can only be legitimately taken away by a Constitutional amendment.
I "incrimate" criminals. The people who run our federal government are MASSIVELY violating The Law.
At least there are people willing to put out the effort, to see that the system operates and functions.
It "operates and functions" like the Mafia "operates and functions." I am spending quite a bit of both time and money to try to restore it to LEGAL functioning. And there's only ONE way to do that...to support Libertarians. (And at least one Republican..the Honorable Ron Paul of Texas.)
In that regard, you're nothing but a back-bench bomb thrower, without any ideas.
Oh, I've got ideas! To start, I'm going to turn Free Republic into a forum that true to its name: FREE...REPUBLIC. I'm figuring it will take me 6 months to a year, since there seems to be a solid minority here that is already there. But I may be too optimistic. There are a lot of folks here who support Republicans. :-(
Libertarians have been wrong about almost everything and on top of that, the Libertarian Party has been losing members for years. Take about being clueless. In the last general election, Harry Browne the Libertarian Party presidential candidate received 375,024 votes, or 0.367% of the total votes cast for president. Even old Pat Buchanan did better then that. Libertarianism is a political, societal and cultural failure and soon will be a footnote in the history books. When that happens, you'll really have something to whine about. LMAO.
Society CAN change the rules, through its government.
"Without amendment"? -- Do you enjoy making obviously inane comments? - Weird.
The Constitution gives Congress authority, to make and change the laws of the land, as they see fit.
Not on prohibitions without amendments. -- Again, your observations are simply ludicrous. Get real.
If you don't like the political makeup of the Congress, work to change the elected officiials who control it. I remind you, the Constitution isn't holy scripture.
Good grief, I never claimed it was 'scripture'. Your other platitude on congress is laughable.
For the hundreth time, it doesn't take a constitutional amendment to create legislation or change existing law in America.
Yep, that's about all you are capable of, in argument. -- You make multiple repetitions of obviously inane points.
You need rest.
Oh, I've got ideas!
Libertarians have no ideas. Libertarians have no political strategy and thereby, can't get elected to officies of public trust. The people don't trust libertarians. The Libertarian Party is void of any rational, logical or substantive ideas. The LP agenda is extremist.
Libertarianism is dead!
Well said. -- Our 'reagan man' will not respond on point. --- Doesn't have the equipment.
463 posted by tpaine | To 455 |
And what point is that, tpaine?
At post #455, HOS made a point, in a post to you.
-- You can't respond.
-- That is NOW the point.
Are you always this dense?
Your bullying and patronizing remarks;i.e., 'Grow up, already', are uncalled for.
You bluster and strut like a banty rooster...
and I suspect you have a similar ambition in life-- to be on top of the manure pile.
Sorry, Mr. Man, we don't want to live in your dungheap.
I think your arguments are empty and weak. You make the same rhetorical remarks, over and over and over, again and again and again. WOW. This is simple, the Constitution empowers Congress, to create legislation and/or change existing law in America. It's legal and its lawful.
You need a long rest. Take a nap now, you'll feel better.
I don't respond to sicko-wacko crazies.
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.