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.
Heh, heh, heh! Looks like YOU'RE the fool! (Again. Better get used to it!)
In the Conservative Index, posted by The New American Magazine...which "rightwing2" assures me is the DEFINITIVE rating system for conservatives, Ron Paul virtually always finishes near the top.
Ron Paul...the prototypical conservative
From that post:
TOP "TEN" CONSERVATIVE LIST based on 2001 Conservative Index scores published in The New American magazine:
US House
1. Rep. Tancredo (R-CO) 95%
2. Rep. Paul (R-TX) (former Libertarian) 92%
3. Rep. Schaefer (R-CO) 90%
4. Rep. Hostettler (R-IN) 88%
5. Rep. Royce (R-CA) 84%
6. Rep. Rohrbacher (R-CA) 83%
7. Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-WI) 81%
8. Rep. Duncan (R-TN) 79%
9. Rep. Barr (R-GA) Rep. Goode (R-VA) (former Democrat) Rep. Pombo (R-CA) all tied for 9th place with a 78% conservative rating.
US Senate
1. Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) 74%
2. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) 72%
3. Sen. Robert Smith (R-NH), Sen. James Inhofe & Sen Voinovich (R-OH) 70%
4. Sen. Strom Thurmond 69% (former Democrat)
5. Sen Phil Gramm (R-TX), Sen. Campbell (R-CO) (both former Democrats) & Sen. Frank Murkowski at 67%
6. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) & Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) at 65%
Read it and Freep! You apparently don't know your conservatives! That comes from you not recognizing that virtually NO Republicans are interested in the goal that you SAY you are striving for...returning the government to the size it was prior to the New Deal. (You certainly won't get there with the federal War on Drugs, by the way. As was pointed out, federal laws against marijuana are NEW DEAL laws. So I guess FDR is your fave, after all.)
My error is that I do.
Then I guess Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were "void of any rational, logical, or substantive ideas." Because they were FARRRR closer to being Libertarians than Republicans! (In fact, the founders revolted against a government that was far less intrusive than the current federal government that Republicans are running.)
Ron Paul didn't dare run as a conservative, because he isn't a conservative. Paul is a libertarian, who chose to run in a district that has 60% Democratic Party voters. Ron Paul, a good old fashioned liberal-libertarian. Hehehehehehehe
How many Libertarian's are in the House. One In the Senate. Zero In Governorships, zippo
Actually, I do know. But then, folks were much more individualistic. Folks were more community oriented. We didn't have confiscatory tax rates that enslave the wage earner to the whims of Congress-critters who seek votes by theft and redistribution. We had fewer laws that restricted speech and religion. WE could build as we pleased upon our own land without government interference. There are a host of ways that people were freer. Don't deny that.
We had fewer laws that restricted speech and religion.
I don't agree with you at all.
WE could build as we pleased upon our own land without government interference.
Okay. There are too many regulations on building today.
There are a host of ways that people were freer. Don't deny that.
I don't deny that the scope and size of the federal governemnt hasn't grown out of control since 1922. But I don't believe our basic individual freedoms, having been undercut, as some folks do.
The mission statement of Free Republic by Jim Robinson is about halfway down the linked page, under What is our mission?
Any thoughts on this, especially the parts about the Federal government acting unconstitutionally?
Agreed. But why are you addressing me about this? Frankly, I don't like your the tone of your message or the inferences you're making. But I'm willing to listen to your explanation. Continue.
I agree it is not the cleanest method, but the lawmakers choose reinterpretation over time so the Constitution wasn't eventually considered just an old piece of history.
They could have just constantly created ammendments as needed. Sounds like you would have preferred that way of going. Some day that may happen.
Regarding drugs, the Libertarians need to drop that issue.
I know the addicted can never give the drugs up, they are weak, lacking self control and don't care who suffers in their selfishness.
The Libertarians need to drop that and other forms of anarchy if they want to be listened to without many feeling it requires tin-foiled hats.
Until they do that, they will just be the crazy cousin kept locked away in the closet.
The Free Republic mission statement says that the Federal government is acting outside its constitutional authority in areas such as crime, education, environment, and education.
Your position, as I interpret it, is that you believe the Federal government is indeed acting constitutionally in these areas.
Is that an accurate interpretation?
I never said Ron Paul was in the Seante, mister smart-aleck. He is Representative from Texas. Putting words in my mouth, doesn't make them true.
You are even more wrong about his political leanings. Conservative hero Ron Paul has consistently been the most conservative member of Congressman from 1996-2000 and was only ousted from that position in 2001 by conservative hero, Rep. Tancredo.
Not according to the American Conservative Union and the rating system it employs. While Ron Paul does have a lifetime rating of 85 with the ACU, his 2000 mark was only 75 and in 2001 he was at 70. Looks like Paul is moving away from conservatism, headed in the wrong direction.
Ron Paul may have some conservative leanings, on fiscal issues, but politically, he is your basic libertarian. If he doesn't support the Libertarian Party agenda and he is pro-life, then he should denounce the LP, immediately. And explain, how he gets elected in a district with a 60% Democrtic Party registartion. You ain't fooling no one. And Jesse Ventura is a political independent, not a practicing libertarian. While Ventura supports abortion rights, he also favors strict enforcement of America's national drug control policy.
As to your personal attacks aimed at me, they're noted, for the record, dummy.
No. On education and environment the federal government has overstepped its bounds. The education dept should be abolished. I'm a strong law and order conservative and believe, if you do the crime, you do the time. Period.
Any other specific questions?
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.