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.
And my screenname is Reagan Man, not Regan Man, stupid!
Hardly 'crazy-wacko'....;^)
You should think about changing your screen name to GregoryFool. That certainly fits you better.
"All is vanity."
He flat out refuses debates of substance; i.e., where he can't use his collection of hackneyed sound-bites as a substitute for honest contention.
Honesty is a virtue these types are unacquainted with. They must think simple conformity suffices as a substitute for all the difficult bits of moral reasoning.
Or someone who cares about the Constitution. Which obviously doesn't include the majority of conservatives. (Present company included.)
And a majority of Americans fully support the recently passed Campaign Finance Reform legislation. A majority of Americans support the federal government violating their Constitutional rights in a large number of ways.
But this country, BY LAW, is not a democracy. It's supposed to be a constitutional republic.
And they are constitutional.
You keep writing this, but to my knowledge, you've NEVER explained why a Constitutional amendment was (or was not) required to prohibit alcohol manufacture and sale, but somehow was not required for drugs. The reason you can't explain it is because drug laws are NOT constitutional.
In addition, those people who support legalization and who act as enablers to these low life scum drug dealers/users, should be ashamed of themselves.
No, U.S. citizens who support the federal government violating The Law (the Constitution) should be ashamed of themselves. But none of them are.
There is absolutely no redeeming social value in the use of these drugs.
Many DOCTORS (people with actual medical degrees) advocate use of marijuana in specific situations (to avoid nausea from chemotherapy, for example). In fact, people who oppose allowing sick people to get whatever medicines their doctors think are appropriate should ALSO be ashamed of themselves. But none of them are either.
I always listen to my mother. Even when she's wrong. :-)
As far as the history, I know Theodore Roosevelt...
Yes, Teddy Roosevelt. One of a never-ending line of Big Government Republican presidents, unbroken even to the present.
...but, I really don't have the time to research all the arguments regarding whether or not the actual creation of FDA was unconstitutional (and I'm not gonna take your word for it that it wasn't)
Well, assuming you already know that "general welfare" only applies to specific things in Article I, Section 8, the only way the FDA COULD be Constitutional would be under the clause, "regulate commerce...among the several states." Then you could look at what was meant by "regulate." Since the Articles of Confederation INHIBITED commerce among the several states, the idea of "regulate" was amost certainly to "make regular"...as a laxative makes a person "regular." In other words, the idea was to ease the flow of commerce among the "several states." The FDA most certainly does NOT ease the flow of commerce among the several states. The hoops that the FDA makes companies jump through before a medicine is approved DELAYS, by many years, the flow of commerce between states. In other words, the FDA does basically the opposite of what the writers of the Constitution intended.
In fact, it's even WORSE than that, because the FDA doesn't even allow production WITHIN the state where the medicine is being made, until the FDA approves. There's NO WAY the writers of the Constitution ever intended the federal government to be able to reach WITHIN a state to INHIBIT (make "irregular") trade!
The country and world changed and many crimes involve international criminals and multiple states. That's why Congress and the judical system allowed for the expansion of crimes to be prosecuted by the Federal government.
Wrapping one's self up in the constitution is simply a smoke screen to achieve your goals of being able to smoke weed without getting busted.
Truth is, CFR isn't even on the radar screen for most American's and only gained enough support for final Senate passage, because of Congressional response following the Enron mess. I believe the USSC will find portions of the CFR legislation, to be clearly unconstitutional and those parts will then be removed from the law. This is specific to the parts that infinge upon free speech, such as the ban on running issue ads against incumbants, 60 days prior to an election.
But lets not forget, this thread is about Libertarian's and illicit drugs. The idea that certain legislation that becomes law, is viewed by some people as unconstitutional, but by other people as constitutional, has been standard fair in America since the earliest days of our Republic. And America's national drug control policy is constitutional.
... to my knowledge, you've NEVER explained why a Constitutional amendment [was not] required for drugs. The reason you can't explain it is because drug laws are NOT constitutional.
I have explained it more then once. Article I, section 1 of the US Constitution, provides that "[a]ll legislative [p]owers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,..." I can't help it if you're not satisfied with that. I've posted the Controlled Substances Act several times, along with the 1991 USSC decision, Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160, that gave the CSA its legal binding and lawful status.
The federal government isn't violating the law, in the case of the CSA, or the NDCP.
Many DOCTORS (people with actual medical degrees) advocate use of marijuana in specific situations (to avoid nausea from chemotherapy, for example). In fact, people who oppose allowing sick people to get whatever medicines their doctors think are appropriate should ALSO be ashamed of themselves. But none of them are either.
From what I've read and from personal experiences with cancer patients, a majority of the medical community, believes there is no therapeutic value in smoking MJ, for those people suffering from serious/terminal illnesses. There are perscription drugs, that come in pill form, that are available and do a much better job, in relieving the pain and discomfort related to cancer and other horrible afflictions. Bottom line, the federal government is simply doing their job, by enforcing drug laws. Personally, I believe if someone receives comfort, through the psychosomatic relief of smoking pot, they should be allowed to use it, but only under the approval and strict control of a physician.
LOL! I had and that's what prompted my comment on the other thread.
That's all *I* can think of. What else did you have in mind? The country and world changed and many crimes involve international criminals and multiple states.
That's what extradition is for. Whatever crime occurs, it occurs in one place. That's the appropriate place for the trial...unless no unbiased jury can be found at that place.
Wrapping one's self up in the constitution is simply a smoke screen to achieve your goals of being able to smoke weed without getting busted.
Complete BS. I've come to expect this from conservatives. Just like liberals! I don't smoke...anything...and have never been "high" on any substance (unless chocolate qualifies).
Anyhoo, pro-WOD or anti-WOD really misses the entire point in my mind. For those who are anti-WOD (especially the decriminalization of narcotics crowd), a quick question: Is the American body politic truly ready for decriminalization of narcotics?
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.