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.
That's blasphemy! How dare you!
Ever see anyone with the DTs? It's as bad as any smack addict.
But I'm not tired of paying to lock up murderers drug growers, drug dealers, drug purchasers and drug abusers. That I'm willing to pay for.
Short the willingness to do what is neccessary to stop drug usage, all the rest is hot air. The war on drugs, treatment centers, etc. are only bottomless pits for blfeeding hearts to toss taxpayer money.
Not at all. I think it means "social conservatives", have a deep rooted personal understanding and appreciation for traditional beliefs and values that stipulate, human beings follow a code, that distingishes, what is right from what is wrong...
I’m not against facism, if I get to be the fascist.
Because it's so effective?
Well, if the shoe fits.....
You were saying?
It is? Since when?
Every morning I drink two or more cups of coffee. Guess I'll have some explaining to do to my Maker...
I just want the drug warriors to answer the "Who's your Daddy?" question.
True. However, the laws of civilized society regularly undergo revision -- after all, 50 years ago, New Deal socialism was the law of civilized society. Those who are advocating changes in the drug laws are taking part in the process by which aspects of society are examined, reconsidered, and, sometimes changed.
Contrary to libertarian propaganda, most people who are caught with small amounts of marijuana, are not automatically thrown in jail on a first time offense. In fact, most users of marijuana, who are caught with the illicit substance, are given many chances by the criminal justice system, to reform, before they're actually put in prison.
Quite true. In fact, when I was at the University of Michigan in the mid-80s, the penalty for pot possession in Ann Arbor was a $5 fine. For all intents and purposes, it was legal.
Thing is, I saw some students who used pot and screwed up their lives. I saw other regular pot smokers who quite frankly thrived, got solid grades, and went off to law school and business school. I didn't see any appreciable difference in failure and success between those who used pot and those who did not. In that light, it does not make sense, to me, that pot should be banned.
True, provided you consider society and government to be freely interchangeable. In the case of marijuana, at the time it was prohibited it's use was not widespread, and it was not an issue of general concern among "society". The decision to prohibit it was done by government, and support for that decision was demanded of society. Should our society decide what kind of government we are to have, or should our government decide what kind of society we shall live in? Or should we just consider them one in the same so we never have to ask that question?
In your opinion and nothing more.
The law is the law.
Some laws I may agree with and others I may disagree with. Some laws are viewed as unconstitutional and some are deemed constitutional. That's what social, cultural and political agendas are all about. That's why will hold democratic elections and choose who we think deserves the public trust and should be given the power and authority to govern this great nation. That's what the US Constitutiona is all about.
Granted.
The right of a farmer to grow and sell crops isn't the RKBA.
The right of a businessman to hire and fire is not the RKBA.
In fact, nothing else is the RKBA.
So what?
Well, I'll concede that the RKBA is the guarantor of all other rights; that doesn't negate the value of other rights, IMHO.
Folks that use illegal substances aren't asking anyone's permission from the get-go. This fact will never change: there will always be people who seek drugs and there will always be suppliers to meet the need (or create it?).
Movies, when watched, do not enter the blood stream and markedly change the affect of the viewer. Cocaine, smoked, does so rapidly and dramatically.
Personally I believe we can be affected negatively by many different things, some legal/some illegal. For the greater good of society, and as a result of observation over time, some things are given a greater prohibition.
Valium was dispensed like candy in the sixties, until it's addictive potential was made manifest. Plain Jane housewives, not drug-addled bums, showed how certain substances are inherently problematic.
Amen to that -- for all that I drink occasionally.
but I don't hear any of the "Drug Warriors" calling for a return to prohibition.
Probably because too many of them are addicted to their nightly martini or six-pack.
Simpler reason. It was tried and it failed, big-time. Alcohol now has a free pass from being banned, except for an occasional dry county.
This happens now. Drug dealers 'brand' their drugs, especially heroin, giving them names like 'spider' or 'blackjack'. The names get around, and addicts shop for the best dope.
Right. I think most of these people don't have enough self control to "just say no" to drugs, so they need a big brother government to tell them it's wrong.
The right of a farmer to grow and sell crops isn't the RKBA.
Equating drug use to America's farmers providing food to our nation is equally inane.
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.