Posted on 12/17/2002 9:39:06 AM PST by Joe Bonforte
In a little noticed hearing of the House Government Reform Commnittee last week, Indiana Congressman (my homeotwn's Congressman actually) and longtime drug warrior Dan Burton made some stunning comments. In a hearing entitled "America's Heroin Crisis, Colombian Heroin and How We Can Improve Plan Colombia," Burton stopped just a hair short of advocating the decriminalization of drugs. Watch the video here (cut forward to 1 hour, 18 minutes into the hearing). Here's the transcript:
Dan Burton: I want to tell you something. I have been in probably a hundred or a hundred and fifty hearings like this at various times in my political career,. And the story is always the same. This goes back to the sixties. You know, thirty or thirty five years ago. And every time I have a hearing, I hear that people who get hooked on heroin and cocaine become addicted and they very rarely get off of it. And the scourge expands and expands and expands. And we have very fine law enforcement officers like you go out and fight the fight. And you see it growing and growing, and you see these horrible tragedies occur. But there is no end to it.
And I see young guys driving around in tough areas of Indianapolis in cars that I know they can’t afford and I know where they are getting their money. I mean that there is no question. A kid can’t be driving a brand-new Corvette when he lives in the inner city of Indianapolis in a ghetto. You know that he has gotta be making that money in someway that is probably not legal and probably involves drugs.
Over seventy percent of all crime is drug-related. And you alluded to that today. We saw on television recently Pablo Escobar gunned down and everybody applauded and said “that’s the end of the Medellín cartel. But it wasn’t the end. There is still a cartel down there. They are still all over the place. When you kill one, there’s ten or twenty or fifty waiting to take his place. You know why? Its because of what you just said a minute ago, Mr. Carr, Mr. Marcocci (sp). And that is that there is so much money to be made in it there is always going to be another person in line to make that money.
And we go into drug eradication and we go into rehabilitation and we go into education, and we do all of these things... And the drug problem continues to increase. And it continues to cost us not billions, but trillions of dollars. Trillions! And we continue to build more and more prisons, and we put more and more people in jail, and we know that the crimes most of the time are related to drugs.
So I have one question I would like to ask all of you, and I think this is a question that needs to be asked. I hate drugs. I hate people who succumb to drug addiction, and I hate what it does to our society. It has hit every one of us in our families or friends of ours. But I have one question that nobody ever asks, and that is this question: What would happen if there was no profit in drugs? If there was no profit in drugs, what would happen. If they couldn’t make any money out of selling drugs, what would happen?
Carr: I would like to comment. If we made illegal... what you are arguing then is complete legalization?
Dan Burton: No I am not arguing anything. I am asking the question. Because we have been fighting this fight for thirty to forty years and the problem never goes way...
....Well I don’t think that the people in Colombia would be planting coca if they couldn’t make any money, and I don’t think they would be refining coca and heroin in Colombia if they couldn’t make any money. And I don’t think that Al Capone would have been the menace to society that he was if he couldn’t sell alcohol on the black market and he did and we had a horrible, horrible crime problem. Now the people who are producing drugs in Southeast Asia and Southwest Asia and Colombia and everyplace else. They don’t do it because they like to do it. They don’t fill those rooms full of money because they like to fill them full of money. They do it because they are making money.
At some point we to have to look at the overall picture and the overall picture and I am not saying that there are not going to be people who are addicted they are going to have to be education and rehabilitation and all of those things that you are talking about - but one of the parts of the equation that has never been talked about because politicians are afraid to talk about it this is my last committee hearing as Chairman. Last time! And I thought about this and thought about this, and thought about this. And one of the things that ought to be asked is “what part of the equation are we leaving out?” And “is it an important part of the equation?” And that is the profit in drugs. Don’t just talk about education. Don’t just talk about eradication. Don’t just talk about killing people like Escobar, who is going to be replaced by somebody else. Let’s talk about what would happen if we started addressing how to get the profit out of drugs.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if, twenty years from now, we could look back at law-and-order Dan Burton's conversion as the "Nixon goes to China" turning point of the drug war?
BUMP!!
Well I don't believe that even that can be construed as a valid statement. And if you read through some of the material on the site I posted you will find that one of the reasons is due to the data, and quality thereof, that is available for the time period. In addition, since most of the population was rural at the time, the use of opiates did not have the same impact on them as it did in the urban areas.
However if you make the statement that many of the people of the time used opiates, I think you would find it easier to support that statement. .
I'm not suggesting a goverment "program" unless you are such an anarcist that you consider a driver's license to be a government "program".
You assert that but the experience of Prohibition doesn't bear that out, al least not the calamity you imply.
There was a marked increase in liver diseaese after the repeal of prohibition. I'm not implying that prohibition was a good thing but it does demonstrate that recreational drug abuse increases when its legal. While pot is rather mild, the abuse of harder drugs (heroin, LSD, crack) is far more damaging than alcohol.
Should we register drunks?
Register - no. License - yes. If they have a license to consume alcohol (and presently you do have to show proof of age to purchase alcohol, so this is not without precident)it means that they have the insurance to cover the medical problems that they're going to have, nor will I have to worry that my airplane pilot is drunk.
As the article stated, we spend trillions (with a "T") on this failed "war". For that kind of dough, we could deal with a few problem addicts and still give you a good chunk of change back.
Well, there it is. Lets go from big socialism to socialism-lite. Well, thats still socialism now, isn't it? I would still have to pay for someone else's recreational drug use.
Same document, our constitution. See the 9th. - Rights need not be enumerated.
Do any of the states have a document that protects the right to use drugs?
Immaterial. States are bound to obey our constitution by the Supremacy Clause, Art VI.
I'll help you out, the 21st ammendment can be interpretted (loosely) as a protection of the right to consume alcohol. But thats only one drug. What are some others?
Both the 5th & 14th amendments state that the *property* of the people cannot be deprived without due process. Prohibitive decrees declaring substances to be 'criminal' are not due process, they are 'law' made by majority rule, in defiance of constitutional principle.
And yes I'm sure about rights, I'll spell it out for you personally even though I have already done it several times on this thread. A person has the RIGHT to do anything they please so long as it does not violate the rights of other people.
I made it in bold so that you can remember it.
Please RE-READ. I always thought you had the capacity to understand language even though you have trouble with simple concepts.
Oh well,,,,,I'll repeat it for you again. S L O W L Y
R i g h t s
a r e
n o t
g r a n t e d
b y
j u r i e s
o r
j u d g e s.
And although irrelevant again, yes, juries are often wrong OJ. Oh, I mean Tex.
Perhaps this is the root of our differences. You believe that you can purchase a drug, take it home and consume it, and no one else will be affected. Since you are a Freeper, I do not doubt the you personally, FreeTally, can do this. If all recreational drug use could go that way, then this discussion wouldn't even exist.
But thats not the experience of society in general. My rights are infringed upon by drug users almost daily and I kind of live in a "Father Knows Best" type of neighborhood. This comes from a noisy partier two doors down, from the increased police patrols and the resultant loss of property values. This comes from a drug using coworker who is consistently late, is often sick and is impacting my work and the general success of my company. This comes from the need for me to police my minor children and my high school aged kid has to waste valuable time in a DARE class rather than something that will get him to a better college. Then there's the unseen added cost to my health insurance to cover uninsured addicts. The activity of drug users infringes on my rights all the time, simply because irresponsible drug use is prevalent and its affects are significant.
And when the rights of someone who chooses to contribute positively to society conflict directly with those irresponsible individuals who want a little recreation, then I favor the rights of those who are building on society.
Note that I do recognize that there are responsible drug users. I believe that licensing allows for the protection of their rights without interfering with mine.
As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, -- the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES refered to above are outlined in our constitution, and are not to be decreed by the whims of a moralizing majority.
293 tpaine
Right, the constitution leaves the power of excluding activities or persons that impose danger upon their neighbors to the states. The founders supported such state laws. Witchcraft, sodomy, ect.
You are unable to specify the 'danger' in private acts of 'drug' use. -- or in witchcraft, sodomy, etc. -- You never have. -- Until you do, your 'argument' is specious, at best.
Why your blind dedication to drugs makes you so blind to that fact, I do not know.
Your statement is dishonest, - as you know full well that I have no such dedication to 'drugs'.
My arguments are dedicated to constitutional freedoms & always have been. -- You dedicate yours to communitarian rule.
OK now enumerate them. And PROVE that the people retain them. Find where crack is included in those rights that the American citizens hold as God given......
"SMOKING CRACK is a right because I said so."
I ask you to show how it is a right. You claim that it violates no other rights. You ignore the fact that that answer is paradoxical.
Give me solid evidence.
I hold that my neighbor smoking crack is too much of an endangerment to me and mine. The rest of my state shares that belief. You claim that my neighbor has the RIGHT to put me and mine in harms way. What gives him that right?
My rights are infringed upon by drug users almost daily and I kind of live in a "Father Knows Best" type of neighborhood.
OK, lets look at those rights.
This comes from a noisy partier two doors down,
The person who breaks the noise laws should be restrained from violating your rights and you should be able to make a nice case for recompense in a civil suit if you can prove it.
from the increased police patrols
Ah, the well known "right" to be free of increased police patrols. Where would that right be found? (your theory that rights don't exist if they aren't in some document)
and the resultant loss of property values.
Ah, the well known right to a certain property value.
This comes from a drug using coworker who is consistently late,
Ah, the well known right to have co-workers who show up on time.
is often sick
The right to have healthy co-workers.
and is impacting my work and the general success of my company.
The right to have a successful company to work for.
This comes from the need for me to police my minor children
The right to not "police" or otherwise monitor your children.
and my high school aged kid has to waste valuable time in a DARE class rather than something that will get him to a better college.
And not to forget the right to have only valuable classes.
Then there's the unseen added cost to my health insurance to cover uninsured addicts.
The right to low cost health care
Where would I find all these rights? I mean under your theory they can't exist if they aren't in the constitution or some other document.
YEAAAAAAA!!! You got it! Now let the states do as they will and find your own state to legalize hard drugs and stay out of mine.
As for God, he issued no PERMISSION to consume anything and everything WHEREVER we want. That is delusional.
It just goes to show how your rights seem to be established ONLY in your own minds.
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.