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've explained it more than once...and every time, your explanation refuses to deal with prohibition of alcohol. Article I, Section 1 is ONLY relevant, in that it refers to the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8. You have said that prohibition of drugs is constitutionally valid as a matter of "regulat(ing)" "commerce among...the several states." But you have neglected to explain--BECAUSE YOU CAN'T--how that allowed Congress to COMPLETELY end all production and use of drugs, even drugs that don't cross state lines.
Again, WHY was it necessary (or not necessary) to pass a Constitutional amendment for alcohol, to do what was (according to you!) possible with a simple Congressional law for drugs like marijuana, cocaine, morphine, etc.?
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.
This is typical conservative (and liberal!) arrogance. Conservatives (and liberals) extrapolate from their very limited experience...to make laws for everyone. What arrogance! And...let's use the proper word...evil!
The vast majority of the medical profession scoffed at the idea that bacteria caused ulcers and stomach cancer. Until they were PROVEN wrong. It's absolutely evil that people...especially people who don't know @#$%...have the arrogance to tell DOCTORS how their patients should be treated. And it's even worse that they should tell very sick patients what they may not do with their own bodies!
The whole idea of 50 state implementing their own laws on criminal justice is silly. We should have the same laws throughout the nation with the same punishments. All this does is create layers and layers of big government at the judicial level with multiple courts and judges giving their own interpretation of the law. Justice is dependent on finding a conservative group of judges and hoping a liberal-dominanted court doesn't overturn the proper ruling.
The states implementing their own laws on criminal justice -- arguably a legitimate idea in the horse and wagon days of the lat 1700s -- is absurd in a smaller of planes, trains and automobiles. There is an absolute need for a Federal judcial system. In fact, that's the only system we need.
We Libertarians want to decriminalize drugs so that the psychoactive substances you mention will be of CONTROLLED origin, the same way that tobacco and liquor products already are. Who do you sue if you buy a bad batch of drugs from a dealer? Answer: no one. Same question when they are regulated by the marketplace. Answer: the company (or pharmacy) that sold the drugs to you. Decriminalizing drugs will mean that they are REGULATED, because the marketplace is the most natural, organic and fairest kind of regulation there is. It provides (in most cases) almost immediate remedy for defective products or inferior services when government gets out of the way. Fear of competition not government bureaucrats is what keeps companies from giving us inferior products and services.
The prohibition of alcohol, was before my time and has no direct bearing on the illicit drug problem, that exists today in America. May be they could have enforced alcohol prohibition, through Congressional legisaltion, instead of a constitutional amendment. We'll never know.
I will say this. The situation with the 18th amendment halting production, transport and ingestion of alcohol, was eventually overturned by the 21st amendment, because a majority of Americans enjoyed their whiskey and beer and missed its ready availbility. According to the people, alcohol prohibition was wrong.
The American people today, have the knowledge and the intellectual capacity to understand, that dangerous substances, like the illict drugs, heroin, cocaine and marijuana, should be kept illegal.
And...let's use the proper word...evil!
I'd call that a wild attempt to condemn anyone, who may disagree with your opinion, about the subject of marijuana and its proper medical uses. You may be an expert on smoking marijauna, but I'll leave the medical community to handle issues specifically related to medical marijuana.
Standing by for substantive challenges.
Well, I guess they're all too busy doing the NY Times crossword puzzle.
Or suffering a Krispy Kreme attack.
BUMP!
;>)
Sounds nice, if it weren't for the insatiable and destructive appetites of so many drug afficionados. Why did some heroine addicts on methadone maintenance (back at its inception, before they corrected it) use to hold the liquid methadone in their mouths until they got outside the clinic, and then—having spit it into cups— sell it on the street for...money...for what?
For heroine. You can't get properly stoned on methadone maintenance, which is a clue to why your neat market formulae do not apply to psychoactive substances. You are thinking much too rationally for the world of drugs and pleasure.
You do want to legalize all substances don't you? Maybe I'm a bit dense, but does anyone else have difficulty imagining, in this litigious society, that a pharmacist might be tempted to say NO to selling a suspiciously jittery person ANOTHER 8-ball of pharmaceutical cocaine? Or that said person will bat an eyelash before running to the nearest still-thriving dealer he knows who'll be glad to?
You're absolutely right about our litigious society and the potential for that jittery person to sue said pharmacist for refusing the sale. That is why we also need tort reform to accompany decriminalization. If we just fix one problem (by decriminalizing drugs) but not the others (politically correct judges and juries) we haven't accomplished anything. If we decriminalize drugs but don't fix the problems with our legal system people who support the status quo will treat decriminalization like California's so-called "deregulation" of the energy industry. They will say, "See we told you the free market doesn't work," when it was never a free market to begin with. California tried to have it both ways, deregulating one segment of the market but not the rest; this is crony capitalism, not the free enterprise capitalism our founders understood and embraced. Libertarianism really is an all or nothing approach; for a free society to work it has to have people who are willing to take all of the responsibility that comes with that freedom. Since the welfare state (created and supported by both Democrats and Republicans) has been such an integral part of our lives for the last 40 years it will take a lot of time for people to rediscover this truth and see the wisdom of our approach; it took me almost 10 years to see the GOP for what it really is and I prided myself on being part politically savvy. Someone who doesn't know or care much about political realities will probably take a lot longer.
Yes, as was the writing of the Constitution. You seem to have not bothered to study the history of either event. May be they could have enforced alcohol prohibition, through Congressional legisaltion, instead of a constitutional amendment.
:-/ It's tough to judge whether to laugh or cry. The question isn't "whether they could"...it's whether they SHOULD. The members of Congress, the President, and Supreme Court ALL take an oath of office to follow the Constitution.
So once again, why was the 18th amendment needed (or not needed) to follow the Constitution, but apparently NO amendment was needed for drugs (according to you)? I'd call that a wild attempt to condemn anyone, who may disagree with your opinion, about the subject of marijuana and its proper medical uses. You may be an expert on smoking marijauna, but I'll leave the medical community to handle issues specifically related to medical marijuana.
No, it's called the attempt to call evil as it is. NO ONE has the legitimate authority to tell any sick person what he or she may put in their body, in an attempt to get well (or simply relieve pain). Not you. Not any legislature. Not any doctor. It's one thing to counsel that a particular drug or method of use is inappropriate, or even dangerous. But it's evil to force an adult patient to endure pain and suffering, by denying any medication.
Roscoe P. Coltrane? Sorry, I lost you in the "Night of the Living Pings". A google search yields tons of results, alot of which are crap, but some of which are enlightening. From the CATO Institute: "Total drug arrests are now more than 1.5 million a year. There are about 400,000 drug offenders in jails and prison now, and over 80 percent of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 was due to drug convictions. Drug offenders constituted 59.6 percent of all federal prisoners in 1996, up from 52.6 percent in 1990. (Those in federal prison for violent offenses fell from 18 percent to 12.4 percent of the total, while property offenders fell from 14 percent to 8.4 percent.) Yet as was the case during Prohibition, all the arrests and incarcerations haven't stopped the use and abuse of drugs, or the drug trade, or the crime associated with black-market transactions."
Of course, what I'm talking about here is legalization of marijuana, not harder and more volatile drugs like cocaine, pcp, etc.
I understand the history of both alcohol prohibition and what transpired during the debate over the US Constitution. I happen to consider the period of alcohol prohibition, to be irrelevent in todays world. Its obvious you agree with the constitutional amendment process that was followed for alcohol prohibition. It's also quite obvious, you believe the same process, should have been followed with todays drug prohibition. You want me to agree with you on both issues. I won't and that gets you angry. Too bad!
We have two different viewpoints and come from differing political backgrounds. Your's is mired in reactionary absolutism, while my is more open to traditional values like pragmatism, compromise and negotiation. Truth is, in the real world, my political strategy is far superior to yours. Your political strategy has been proven, not to work.
And this idea, that you're capable of defining what is evil and what isn't, when it comes to civilized society, is a total joke. I'm not an evil person and consider your personal insults uncalled for. I also don't consider doctors and legislators, who are simply doing their jobs, to be evil people either. Your continued use of this term, for people who disagree with you, is misplaced and unwarranted.
I can understand and appreciate passionate debate on political issues. I can even accept some exchanges, getting very heated. But I can't accept and won't stand for personal insults. So cut the crap already!
Here's my two-cents:
At midyear 2000 the Nation's prisons and jails incarcerated 1,931,859 persons. Prisoners in the custody of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government, accounted for two-thirds of the incarcerated population,or 1,310,710 inmates. The other third were held in local jails, a total of 621,149.
Of the 1,310,710 in federal and state prisons the breakdown is as follows:
Violent Offenses.... 629,140
Property Offenses... 270,006
Drug Offenses........ 276,559
Disorder Offenses... 132,381
Of the 621,149 offenders in local jails throughout America, roughly 70% where incarcerated for drug related offenses. Thats a total of 434,804.
Take the 276,559 drug offenders in federal and state prisons and add the 434,804 drug offenders in local jails throughout the USA and the TOTAL DRUG OFFENDERS IN PRISONS AND JAILS TOTAL = 711,363.
Subtract the 711,363 drug offenders from the total of 1,931,859. That means there are 1,220,496 individuals in prisons and jails. Thats a difference of 509,133.
That means only 36.8%, of all individuals in prisons and jails, are incarerated for drug law violations. And only 21% of federal inmates, are there for drug law violations.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Source: Correctional Populations in the United States, 1997, and Prisoners in 2000
Violent offenses include murder, negligent and non-negligent manslaughter,rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, extortion, intimidation, criminal endangerment, and other violent offenses.
Property offenses include burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, fraud, possession and selling of stolen property, destruction of property, trespassing, vandalism, criminal tampering, and other property offenses.
Drug offenses include possession, manufacturing, trafficking, and other drug offenses.
Public-order offenses include weapons, drunk driving, escape/flight to avoid prosecution, court offenses, obstruction, commercialized vice, morals and decency charges, liquor law violations, and other public-order offenses. =====================================================================
Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2000
Number of persons in custody of State correctional authorities by most serious offense, 1980-99
Your complete lack of logic, and complete inability to defend your illogic, doesn't make me angry at all. It entertains me, in fact. (Which shows how little real life I have.)
And this idea, that you're capable of defining what is evil and what isn't,...
Yeah, as if you do NOT think you're capable of defining what is evil and what isn't! What a joke! It's merely that my definition of evil doesn't match yours.
But I can't accept and won't stand for personal insults.
You can't accept and won't stand for personal insults, but you don't have any problem at all with libeling the Libertarian Party. Stop libeling the Libertarian Party.
Stop libeling the Libertarian Party.
No one's libeling the LP. The LP has disgraced itself, time and again. It doesn't need any help from me.
No, YOU are libeling the Libertarian Party. Or you are illiterate. THIS is libelous:
I think its fair to say, the libertarian philosophy --- that upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty -- is at the heart of the Libertarian Party.
...because I've already posted--repeatedly--the actual principle that is at the heart of the Libetarian Party:
"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."
For you to say that those principles represent "absolutely and unrestricted liberty" means you're either lying or illiterate. Take your pick. (Or come up with some other explanation for your statement.)
I was quite clear, no one's libeling the Libertarian Party. That charge is ridiculous. The LP has disgraced itself, time and again and doesn't need any help from me, along those lines. The basis for the LP, can be found in fringe political extremism, that supports abortion rights, prostitution, drug abuse, open borders, mass immigration and lifting of trade embargos with communist Cuba. The LP platform, also advocates dismantling America's military armed forces and her criminal jusitce system.
The LP platform states that "...individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose". That's just another way of saying, libertarians "support the principle of absolute and unrestricted liberty". I see no difference between the two. Such philosophical concepts are standard LP rhetoric and is nothing more then open support, for chaos and anarchy. If you want to interpret it in your usual illogical manner, have at it.
OTOH, FreeRepublic is an open political forum, designed to further conservatism, to expose political corruption and to return our great nation, to more of the original intentions of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.
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.