Libertarians Advocate Drug Legalization: Recipe For Escalating Societal Decay

GOPUSA.COM ^ | May.16,2002 | Carol Devine-Molin

[Impeach98]

Well, it is ILLEGAL to drive with a Blood Alcohol Content above a certain limit.

It is ILLEGAL to engage in disorderly conduct.

If all the do-gooders here would accept the argument that people should be held accountable for their actions that cause harm to others BUT NOT be held as criminals for doing something that is of their own concern then I think we could find a happy medium.

But it sounds like people have a list of what they are comfortable with and not comfortable with and want to legislate based on that.

Well I have some type of movies I like and some I am not so comfortable with (really gorey movies are not my thing).

But guess what? It isn't my perview to tell the rest of you what kind of movies you should find entertainment in. Nor is it within my perview to tell you what chemical substance you should put into your body.

[philman_36]

LSD, Cocaine, Heroin, PCP (God only knows what they will be harping about in 20 yrs) is OFF LIMITS to my kids. Permanently.
As a parent and guardian that is your right. Yet, what happens when your "kids" grow up into functional, self determining adults? Will you still control their every action? Will they allow you to do so or will they become independent adults instead of "perpetual kids"?
And I've yet to see anyone advocating "kids" usage anyway. Actually, "kids" have access to illegal drugs now, despite their currently being "illegal". It seems like legalization, or decriminalization, would protect your kids better than what currently occurs today.

[Roscoe]

Drug use isn't the RKBA.

[GSWarrior]

I'm glad that drugs are illegal. If they weren't, people would probably use them.

You're sarcasm is missed by many here. Makes me wonder who is really stoned here.

[ActionNewsBill]

I know - just because all of us immoral Libertarians want to mainline our evil caffeine every day with no consequences doesn't mean we should be forcing our pro-coffee stance on poor defenseless children!

And those of us who use substances such as Mua Huang and guarana (perfectly legal OTC drugs) need to be arrested and put away as well.

After all, it's for "the good of society".

[CWRWinger]

The Libertarian Party and like-minded think tanks and policy research centers, most notably the Cato Institute, are proponents of drug legalization.

That's all the further I got, have to say this: A free Republic cannot be maintained if its citizens are stoned or drunk.

The Cato Institute loses credibility with this flush from their 'think tank'. (Change their name to Cato Rooti-Toots?)

[Suzie_Cue]

Canadian marijuana reform concern to U.S.

http://www.canada.com/national/globalnational/story.asp?id=A75EC010-5378-4E0A-8631-84C7CA9DC948

Monday, May 13, 2002

Who would have thought you'd live long enough to see this. Hearings by Canadian parliamentarians into legalizing marijuana. And even more amazing is whose running the hearings.

---

Global reports

---

Senators, whose average age has tended to those 55 plus. But today in Regina they kicked off a series of meetings aimed at looking at whether it's time to take smoking pot off the list of crimes in Canada. And framing these discussions is a little-noticed report they've just issued reaching some startling conclusions.

The Senate committee concludes there is no convincing evidence that smoking pot leads to using harder drugs.

It says marijuana use does not induce users to commit other crimes, or engage in risky activity such as driving quickly.

The Senate also found that one in every three Canadian kids age 15 and 16 has smoked at least once in the past month, and that one and a half million Canadians have a criminal record because of what the Senate calls simple possession.

Ground-breaking stuff. But this report, and Canada’s willingness to allow people to use marijuana for medical purposes, also seems to have raised the ire of the U.S. in a significant way. We’ve learned tonight that its drug czar is pressuring Canadian authorities not to loosen Canadian law and he's carrying a very big stick -- threatening trade sanctions if we don't do what he wants. Global National's Carl Hanlon has the exclusive details.

On the street its called B.C. bud and American demand for it is reaching new highs.

Sources close to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency say it will soon issue a report claiming there are 15 to 20,000 marijuana growing operations in British Columbia alone and 95 per cent of the output is headed south.

"A dramatic increase in the gross quantity of marijuana of high potency coming across the border," says Colonel Robert Maginnis, a U.S. government adviser on drug policy. He says the bush administration is alarmed by a recent Senate study that says Canada’s marijuana laws are ineffective.

The U.S. fears the next step could be looser regulations leading to more drugs crossing the border and its ready to play hardball with trade to make sure that doesn't happen.

"To antagonize government leaders and grass roots leader because you insist on having a radical drug policy that we will not ignore in the long term, then its going to have adverse consequences and I hope we would be able to rectify it before it comes to blows," explains Maginnis.

The U.S. is closely watching the Canadian marijuana debate and is working behind the scenes to influence the outcome. Next month the president's chief of drug policy attend a drug conference in Quebec and he'll make sure his counterparts understand the U.S. opposes liberalization.

As for the Canadian government, solicitor general Lawrence Macaulay did not respond when asked if Canada is being pressured by U.S.

The organization for the reform of marijuana laws says the Americans have a habit of throwing their weight around to influence other country's drug laws.

Ottawa was pushing ahead with plans to provide government grown medical marijuana people with serious illness, but those efforts appear to have stalled.

But the American angst over medical marijuana use may be a little premature.

As of Friday fewer than 255 Canadians have received licenses to smoke,

And of those 164 can smoke their own because enough government grown isn't available yet.

[Reagan Man]

If not legalizing drugs, we should at least not jail people for just using them.

Civilized society has determined, those people who grow, purchase and ingest illicit drugs, belong behind bars. They are breaking the laws of society.

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.

[Dane]

Drug use isn't the RKBA.

Uh oh, you just deflated the Libertarian prime directive that all inanimate objects are created equal.

They won't like that and go on a new jag of tantrums.

[Impeach98]

"who are caught with the illicit substance, are given many chances by the criminal justice system, to reform,"

*cheap shot warning*

You mean like the Bush daughters?

[68 grunt]

So, either you believe that every one of us is lying, or you choose to be intellectually dishonest and continue to use qualifiers that you know are untrue. Which, may I ask, is it?

Listen True, you've got an member ID like a zip code so I'll bother to explain my belief. These people are here to corrupt the conservative base, to continually throw seeds of discontent, to try to keep us at each other's throats. I believe they are typically deceitful, liberal democRATZ. They want Republicans to be viewed as reactionary, narrow-minded, jack-booted thugs. This works on the stupid amoung us, please don't let that be you. Thanks.

[Louburger]

If You are saying what I think Youre saying, You are right. Probably 50% of the people who get into drugs do so because of money. Drug dealers on the street recruit others to sell for them, so their customer base gets larger and they make more $$$. If You remove half of the reasons people get hooked on drugs, You have to be doing something positive. I do not want people to use drugs, but as You say, They are using them now. If You take the money out of drugs, The crime would go away.

[BikerNYC]

But I'm not tired of paying to lock up murderers. That I'm willing to pay for.

[seanc623]

So all of these two parent households are working because they'd rather not have that second car, really nice clothes, makeup, golf and getting their nails done? Two parent households don't exist in large numbers because neither parent is willing to make the sacrifice of staying home with their child or children. I am the daughter of immigrants whose parents went without in order to rear their children. As did many other lower middle class people of that era. If parents had the same goals today they would make the same choices.

I admire your family's willingness to sacrifice for the benefit of their children. However that has nothing to do with the government robbing your parents (and everyone else's) blind, forcing them to make sacrifices they shouldn't have to make. Stealing is ALWAYS wrong, not just when it's from people we like and that's what government does. You make it sound like the problem is just selfish, materialistic parents when it's actually relentless government thievery.

[dpwiener]

Yes, the Constitutionality of drug laws has been debated extensively on Free Republic, and yes, there are extensive federal drug control laws which the courts have refused to rule unconstitutional. Just as they've refused to overturn any number of other illegitimate laws that the federal government has enacted (especially over the past half century), laws which have vastly exceeded the limited and specific authority that the Constitution assigned to the federal government.

Drug prohibition is a particularly clear-cut example of unconstitutional law-making which today's courts have let stand. Back in 1919 when the 18th Amendment was adopted, it was manifestly clear to everyone that the federal government lacked the authority to prohibit intoxicating liquors absent such a Constitutional Amendment. The parallel between drug prohibition and alchohol prohibition is exact: Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government any more authority to prohibit drugs than it had to prohibit alchohol, absent a Constitutional Amendment. The only thing that has changed [due to our socialistic public education system, but that's another rant...] is that public opinion and judicial opinion has shifted so far in support of unfettered federal power that the government can merrily ignore its Constitutional limitations.

And social conservatives are quite willing to join this massive public opinion / judicial shift by which the Constitution is bypassed, simply because it happens to coincide with their social engineering agenda (in this case the Drug War). Of course when it conflicts with their agenda (e.g., the abortion issue), they get all upset, and complain endlessly about how the Supreme Court was wrong to rule as it did. Consistency is not exactly a strong point among social conservatives...

Libertarians, and some honest conservatives who truly care about preserving our Republic, think the Constitution means what it says. Period.

[gdani]

Civilized society has determined, those people who grow, purchase and ingest illicit drugs, belong behind bars...

Like Newt Gingrich, Clarence Thomas,...

[Cable225]

This is the point that the libertarians never seem to want to discuss -

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.

And arguments like this one do not sway me -

LSD, Cocaine, Heroin, Marijuana, Ecstacy, and all other currently illicit substances would STILL be "off-limits to your kids" in the event of legalization. In fact, it would be harder for them to get, since licensed dealers would lose their licensing if found to be selling to minors.

Yes, because we see how compliant they are about not selling cigarettes to teens when fines and licenses are the issue.

Narcotics cannot be discussed in the same light as alcohol because the effects of addiction are not the same. If you doubt it, compare the alcoholics you know with the drug addicts you know. To continue to argue that drug legalization will have the same effect as the removal of Prohibition is disingenuous.

[ActionNewsBill]

Actually, "kids" have access to illegal drugs now, despite their currently being "illegal". It seems like legalization, or decriminalization, would protect your kids better than what currently occurs today.

Kids have an easier access to illegal drugs, due to the fact that there is no regulation on such substances. Legalizing and controlling the flow of all drugs would go a long way towards keeping them away from kids.

But of course, the "drug warriors" don't want to admit this fact.

[Roscoe]

If they quit equating drugs to the RKBA, and Nazi Germany to "Amerika", they would have very little left to say.

[Impeach98]

In fairness to the "drug warriors" here, there is a lot to be commended in fighting rampant drug use in this country. It is just HOW you fight it.

I think Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign was great. Stigmatizing drug use and making it a socially disrespected thing to do is fine by me.

I just think it is someone's right to choose to use drugs if they wish and a dangerous and slippery slope for people to start going through a checklist of "you CAN do this, but you CAN'T do that" when at issue are actions that affect YOUR OWN BODY and not that of someone else's (like abortion where I believe the government DOES have the right to prohibition).