*** 
Posted on 05/19/2002 8:13:50 PM PDT by hellonewman
Drug dealers are the scum of the earth and the dregs of humanity.
There. I hope that satisfies you.
Some, no doubt, will ignore this because this is an essay about the futility of the Drug War. Political correctness is not just a liberal's disease. Many conservatives -- not all, but many -- have done with the Drug War what liberals have done with racial quotas and gay rights. When anyone says anything in opposition to the Drug War, they spaz out as if they were tripping on Angel Dust.
Such were my thoughts after reading Bill O'Reilly's May 16 column on World Net Daily in which he classifies drug dealing as a "crime against humanity." O'Reilly tells some gut wrenching stories about drug addicts and their families, and lays the blame at the feet of the dealers who sold the drugs to these addicts. He writes that, "If nobody sold drugs, there would be no drug problem".
Liberals frequently brand those who oppose racial quotas "racists" and those who oppose gay rights "homophobic." Conservatives, likewise, frequently brand those who oppose the Drug War as "pro-drug". In this respect they are no different from those people theysay they oppose diametrically. They fail to recognize that just because the government is doing nothing to address a certain issue, does not mean that nobody is doing anything to address this issue. They fail to recognize that their agendas have produced numerous unintended consequences and that continuing with these agendas will only make bad problems worse.
O'Reilly writes: "The truth is that selling hard drugs to people who may die from using them, may become enslaved by addiction, may abuse their children while intoxicated, and may commit crimes to buy more drugs is a vile enterprise that should be condemned by society. The (New York State drug) laws were passed to protect Americans from people who would prey upon them. The average pusher on the street sells to scores of people every day. The damage that person is doing is enormous."
Let us pretend that this is the 1920s, and we are advocating a continuation of alcohol prohibition. "The truth is that selling alcohol to people who may die from using it, may become enslaved by drunkenness, may abuse their children while intoxicated, and may commit crimes to buy more booze is a vile enterprise that should be condemned by society. The Eighteenth Amendment was passed to protect Americans from people who would prey upon them. The average bootlegger sells to scores of people every day. The damage that person is doing is enormous."
The Eighteenth Amendment was passed with good intentions. It had broad support from Christians who longed to turn America into a "no-sin zone", if you will. However, alcohol prohibition produced nothing but disaster. By the early 1930s, alcohol was more abundant and dangerous than ever, crime had skyrocketed. Bootlegging could make you millions. Al Capone virtually owned the city of Chicago, and a good chunk of the Kennedy fortune was amassed by old Papa Joe Kennedy bootlegging that hooch.
As historian George Santayana said, those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. O'Reilly and his ilk have learned nothing from alcohol prohibition. Prohibition doesn't work. It is a great big game of "let's pretend" that produces nightmarish results.
All the bad things drug warriors detest keep happening in spite of the Drug War. Perhaps 100 million Americans have smoked the Devil's Lettuce (i.e. marijuana) at one time or another. We have far harder drugs than we did 30 years ago. The outrageous profits earned by drug dealers -- and hence the huge amounts of money that go to terrorists -- are a direct result of drugs being illegal. And because prohibition has made drug dealing so profitable, there are always people willing to traffic in drugs. Prohibition stopped none of the horrific events O'Reilly recounts in his column.
Drug War fanaticism has led to a quadrupling of our prison population since 1980. (Imagine this: America, "the land of the free", has the highest incarceration rate of any non-communist country.) Why are our prisons so overcrowded and why do rapists and murderers go free? Can you say "War on Drugs"? Last year, the authorities were so busy arresting 730,000 people on drug charges that they apparently had no clue as to what would happen on September 11.
At least there was still enough respect for the Constitution in 1919 to pass an amendment before the government embarked on a new course. Today's drug warriors show reckless disregard for nine of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. They micro-monitor bank transactions, seize assets without due process, impose draconian fines and sentences on non-violent people, routinely kick in doors in "no-knock" raids, and - here is the most damnable aspect of the Drug War - deny medication to suffering and dying people who have exhausted all other avenues of relief.
But won't we solve the problem if we just eradicate the pushers? Because prohibition has made drug dealing so profitable, if you put a pusher in jail and two or three more pop up in his place. Drug dealers prosper because they satisfy demands. Millions of Americans are so morally and spiritually bankrupt that they will do anything for a cheap thrill. There is not one thing that government can do about this.
But won't increased interdiction efforts stop the flow of drugs into the country? Drugs do not magically "flow" into the country. People transport them here because Americans want them. And when you make it tougher to import drugs, Americans turn to "made in America" drugs like methamphetamines. And when the authorities "crack down harder" on meth labs, someone will come up with an even more diabolical drug.
But look at China? They cracked down hard and solved the drug problem. Yeah, and they also "crack down hard" to "solve" the Christianity "problem." If totalitarianism is the price you are willing to pay for a drug-free society, then move to such a country. Given the choice between a free America and a drug-free America, I will choose the former any day. While we are on the subject, solving the drug problem is a totally utopian objective that no government can attain.
But I don't want my kid doing drugs. Well, if you raise your children properly you greatly reduce the chance that they will do drugs. The government cannot raise your children for you. 100 years ago, it was perfectly legal for a ten-year old to walk into the local drug store and buy heroin, and we had nowhere near the problems we have today. Why? Because raising kids was the duty of parents and churches. If you are really serious about keeping your kids off drugs, you have got to look somewhere - anywhere - besides the government.
The Drug War has become a veritable addiction for many of those who support it. While it may make its proponents feel good temporarily, it provides no solution to what is ultimately a moral and spiritual problem. Like so many hard core addicts, drug warriors are never satisfied: they constantly demand that we intensify the thing that makes them feel so good. Their ultimate high -- a drug-free America -- will never come to pass, but they keep pursuing the Drug War anyway. So many Americans have become so accustomed to seeing things through the prism of the Drug War that they cannot imagine life without it. They forget that the solutions lie not in politics, but in the homes and churches of America.
Ranklin Fineo Doosevelt was a lot of bad things. However, he was right on in applauding the end of alcohol prohibition. I do not have the exact quote in front of me, but when the Twenty-First Amendment was ratified, Roosevelt said something to the effect we do not need alcohol control nearly as much as we need self-control. Today, we do not need a national drug control policy nearly as much as we need individual self-control. This is a virtue that no "policy" can instill.
Freely Speaking: Speeches and Essays by Doug Newman
***
That sounds right to me. I couldn't agree more.
However, see post #78. Our country has been destroyed by the liberal, welfare-state Democrats, and it won't get fixed by the democratic process anytime soon.
True, but irrelevant IMO.
It also ignores the damage done by so called conservatives.
Well then, there we go - - it looks like everybody is in agreement:
Once we end the welfare state, we can end the "war on drugs".
Congratulations, everybody - - we have finally resolved the whole issue.
Ciao! See y'all on another thread sometime....
I'm fairly perceptive, but I haven't seen a huge groundswell for decriminalization. If I'm wrong, point me towards a poll or something (I'm specifically talking about hard narcs, NOT marijuana). I'll be happy to look at it.
Nope. America seemed to be doing just fine before the War on Drugs began, and it'll probably do just fine after it finally ends.I think the War on Drugs most definitely has an effect on the direction the country takes politically and morally. It makes the country turn more socialist and statist, and it makes the country turn more and more amoral (crooked cops, crooked politicians, erosion of basic human rights, etc.).
This is a new requirement. You lumped all substances into the catagory "drugs" before.
But the futility of the second prohibition will become apparent to almost all thinking people as time goes by, IMO.
Other countries are moving toward decriminalisation in ever increasing numbers on different substances and in some cases all substances.
One blind spot that many so-called "conservatives" (who really are authoritarians) have with regard to the drug issue is the blind acceptance of the premise that "marijuana = cocaine = heroin = PCP = meth" etc. Not only is that premise downright incorrect, but it has led to the arrests of over 734,000 Americans in 2000: a time when foreign religious fanatics were busy hatching a plot to ram jet planes into skyscrapers and kill thousands of innocent Americans. In my estimation, the diversion of scarce law enforcement resources towards pot smokers and away from terrorists was a major dereliction of duty on the part of all levels of government, and is something government doesn't want us to think about.
Another thing government doesn't want us to think about is the sordid history of marijuana prohibition (As a black man, you should take a special interest in this, as it was real, hard-core KKK-style Jim Crow racism, not the phony Jessie/Al/Louie type, that played a big role in the enactment of the "Marihuana Tax Stamp Act" of 1937). It was a cabal of a frustrated alcohol prohibitionist looking for something new to prohibit to justify his position (Harry Anslinger), a sensationalist newspaper publisher selling seamy stories of crazed Mexicans and Negroes corrupting white women with the devil weed (W.R. Hearst), and a chemical industry magnate looking to corner the market on paper production from wood pulp by eliminating the hemp-based competition (Dupont) that pushed the Marihuana Tax Stamp Act through Congress in 1937. FDR, the archetypical American socialist, quietly signed this unconstitutional garbage into law on a hot August day, and America has been paying the price in packed prisons and disrespect for law enforcement ever since.
One additional point: The vast majority of Americans today are Rooseveltians, whether they admit it or not.
Republicans mostly can't admit it because of partisan considerations, but this factor is fading as old Republicans die.
The underlying progressive and socialist world-view of the early 20th Century absolutely dominates public discourse in the U.S., despite protests to the contrary.
America is the most successful socialist state in the world...so far. By 'successful', I mean that the American state has met every challenge, external and internal, without diminishment of its authority.
American citizens are now 'managed' as 'human resources'. That's the necessary step to be taken before the 'Soylent Green' solution becomes feasible.
Not to be a fear-monger! ;^)
I don't subscribe to this line of thought. Mary Jane does NOT equal coke, heroin, etc. As a kid, I tried weed several times AND I'll admit that I've never bought any. But did I take a drag off of a blount? Sure. Never liked it really. Just made me hungry and sleepy.
In my estimation, the diversion of scarce law enforcement resources towards pot smokers and away from terrorists was a major dereliction of duty on the part of all levels of government, and is something government doesn't want us to think about.
I agree 100%.
Another thing government doesn't want us to think about is the sordid history of marijuana prohibition (As a black man, you should take a special interest in this, as it was real, hard-core KKK-style Jim Crow racism, not the phony Jessie/Al/Louie type, that played a big role in the enactment of the "Marihuana Tax Stamp Act" of 1937). It was a cabal of a frustrated alcohol prohibitionist looking for something new to prohibit to justify his position (Harry Anslinger), a sensationalist newspaper publisher selling seamy stories of crazed Mexicans and Negroes corrupting white women with the devil weed (W.R. Hearst), and a chemical industry magnate looking to corner the market on paper production from wood pulp by eliminating the hemp-based competition (Dupont) that pushed the Marihuana Tax Stamp Act through Congress in 1937.
Although I hadn't known this (thanx for the info), I can't say I'm surprised. Like I said earlier, marijuana should be legalized right now, and those in prison and/or jail for possession or distribution of marijuana should be released forthwith.
Excuse my lack of clarity.
I'm well aware of the mandates among several states about decriminalizing marijuana. What I was not aware of was any groundswell of support for the decriminalization of hard narcotics. This is what I wanted to look at.
Since all politics is based on compromise, here is my suggestion. Regulate and tax ( and I do mean tax!) marijauna for those who can't live without it. And implement Japanese style penalties for the use of all other drugs, and the death penalty for distribution or manufacturing.
Of course no matter how often you repeat an incorrect idea, it won't become correct. Politics is the agressive pursuit of power. It has nothing to do with compromise. Compromising is what people who seek power do with other people who seek power when they can't win outright. They share the spoils.
Some idiot made the politics based on compromise statement and it caught on among the uneducated.
Regulate and tax ( and I do mean tax!) marijauna for those who can't live without it.
An incredibly poor idea. The government is the cause of the drug problem, not the answer.
I find it hard to believe that someone would think that having the government go into the drug business would make it better given that have never succeeded at anything else except war.
And implement Japanese style penalties for the use of all other drugs, and the death penalty for distribution or manufacturing.
And at last the real agenda, death to people who engage in businesses not approved of by thugs with guns.
Stick around. It will happen as surely as the first prohibition failed.
Prohibition is incompatible with a free society.
When Libertarians can't stop talking about it, addiction is a good word to use.
According to this, the cost of human life is about $23,000/year.
When someone like you is drawn by compulsion to every thread concerning the topic, I think it is you who has the addiction. Your obsession with hating libertarians borders on mental illness. Addiction is the term that most describes your activities here.
The opposition to the WOD is merely the logical extension of a philosophy of interaction with other human beings. That philosophy is what threatens you and other lovers of control over others. It explains your obsession. It's really rather sad.
Tom, I just can't keep away from your sparkling knowledge. I know that I will find you on every thread concerning the War Against Drugs.
Thanks, you are finally making sense. < /sarcasm>
I know that I will find you on every thread concerning the War Against Drugs.
Not true. And just as an aside, I usually get pinged to these threads. Often by people on your side of the argument who want to debate it. Too bad you and your merry little band aren't interested in that, you are only interested in obfuscation of the true libertarian positions.
I will be happy to debate you on any topic anytime (on topic for the thread in the interest of the forum) if you ever become interested in honest debate. I feel very confident that I can make my points persuasively to lurkers who might watch. Trying to change your mind is not in the game plan. A colossal waste of time, that particular endeavor.
Now, you are making sense. You are correct. You will never convince me that legalization of drugs is good for the country and it's people.
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.