Mike Gravel Vows to End the War on Drugs
I already mentioned this in the comments section of Holly’s post, but I think it bears repeating.
During last night’s Democratic Presidential Debate at Howard University in Washington D.C., Mike Gravel gave a rather impassioned speech in which he denounced the War on Drugs and called for its immediate end:
And one of the areas that touches me the most and enrages me the most is our War on Drugs that this country has been putting forth for the last generation.
In 1972, we had 179,000 human beings in jail in this country. Today it’s 2.3 million, and 70% of them are black African-Americans. And I hope my colleagues will join me in standing up and saying like FDR did with Prohibition, “We’ll do away with that.” And FDR did it.
And if I’m president, I will do away with the War on Drugs, which does nothing but savage our inner cities and put our children at risk!
For those of you keeping count, that’s now three presidential candidates (Democrats Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich and Republican Ron Paul) who have come out against the War on Drugs and vowed to end it. They join the Libertarians and Greens, whose parties have also vowed to end the War on Drugs.
What will be the response of the remaining Democratic and Republican candidates, who have been completely silent on this issue during the course of the campaign thus far? Will they denounce Mike Gravel and defend America’s 35-year long War on Drugs? Does anyone expect Rudy Giuliani to remind us of his “zero tolerance” position on drugs or Joe Biden to brag about his RAVE Act?
98 Responses to “Mike Gravel Vows to End the War on Drugs”
Actually, it’s commendable. While so many who profess to favor drug reform and especially legalization are simply part of that “ME, ME, ME” contemporary degeneracy another poster has already noted (two-year-olds who cannot stand the word and concept behind the word “no” regarding any personal behavior), there are serious problems with our War on Drugs, as I have mentioned before, the misuse of prison space and civil asset forfeiture being probably the worst problems with it.
They probably will express reluctance to do anything radical (which ending or substantially reforming the Drug War would be) in order not to repel either conservatives (GOP) or swing voteres (Dem), the latter being the strategy Hillary Clinton is following in general. That’s if they’re asked about it; I suspect they won’t offer to state a position on it. It would be nice if they were pressed for their views on it.
Now if you just look at Gravel’s quote at that debate, it’s reasonable to suspect he was largely just pandering to the black audience, the way the Dems did with racial quotas.
But this isn’t the first time Gravel has been on record advocating drug reform.
Uhh, actually, DLS, Mike Gravel went on the record as wanting to end the War on Drugs before he even announced his candidacy for president. According to OnTheIssues, Mike Gravel took a similar position back in February.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that Gravel opposes the War on Drugs on basic principle? The reason he mentioned that the African-American community should be outraged by the War on Drugs is because this failed government program disproportionately affects them.
It isn’t hard at all, and shouldn’t appear that way at all if you took the time to look at all that I posted. And in case you neglected to observe, I posted a link to an earlier interview Gravel had made.
I don’t know about ending it, but I do think we should re-evaluate its effectiveness, and rechannel accordingly. I think dealers should be locked up, but those who are guilty of posession should just be fined or helped into treatment.
K. Ritter:
I don’t know about ending it, but I do think we should re-evaluate its effectiveness, and rechannel accordingly.
I feel that way and I believe many other Americans do. First of all, it’s a complete waste of expensive, dangerous prison space to put someone there who merely is guilty of possession (personal amounts, not a large amount that qualifies as trafficking or dealing). Civil asset forfeiture (government plunder, theft with burden of legitimate ownership on the citizen rather than on the government) needs to end immediately. (Early in the post-1994 GOP “Revolution,” Newt Gingrich’s turkey of a book for which he drew ethics complaints advocated the increased use of civil asset forfeiture, as outrageous as anyone in EPA advocating the practice to seize “wrongfully” developed wetlands and such.) It even is merited to re-examine marijuana versus alcohol and even legalize marijuana for adults. The state governments can always involve themselves in this and levy taxes on any drugs that are legalized. (Most in this country do not believe marijuana is a horrible drug.) And so on.
Immediate full legalization is no panacea; use and abuse harms not only one’s self often but also others in one’s life (it is not a victimless crime!) and those who want absolutely no restrictions are typically those who have a childish post-1960s attitude toward decency and normality and any limits on personal behavior (they are toddlers who refuse to accept “no” and what “no” means as well as radicals who simply hate societal norms or standards or *gasp* limits of any kind on persons as opposed to, say, businesses).
Wow, we actually agree on something, DLS? Red letter day!
I am starting to think that most “zero tolerance” policies are usually ill-concieved- and difficult in the long run to justify. I guess they make a candidate sound tough on the campaign trail, but in the end they create more injustice than they solve.
[...] Clark Link to Article ron paul Mike Gravel Vows to End the War on Drugs » Posted at The Moderate [...]
DLS, wanting “absolutely no restrictions” is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Wanting federal restrictions (however small) is NOT consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in the entire text of the U.S. Constitution is the federal government granted any power to prohibit the buying, selling, possession, or use of drugs.
The U.S. Constitution is silent about the individual states pursuing their own Wars on Drugs. But drug prohibition–whether it is being waged by the federal government or by state governments represents an egregious threat to personal freedom and complete ignorance of basic economics (specifically the laws of supply and demand).
Frankly, I don’t care if a drug war opponent is a libertarian or a libertine. As long as both want to end the War on Drugs, they’re moving in the right direction–a pro-individual liberty, pro-Constitution stance.
Turning the War on Drugs issue into argument involving decency, normality, personal behavior is a straw man argument.
Well, I’m not going to make a constitutional argument, just a practical one. I agree with DLS that legalization is not panacea, because drug abuse is not a victimless crime- but OTOH, neither is alchoholism, which destroys families every day. Prohibition created more crime than it solved, and was deemed a failure. So is the War on Drugs. But, I’m not sure that I believe in full legalization yet.
[...] Clark Link to Article dennis kucinich Mike Gravel Vows to End the War on Drugs » Posted at The [...]
K. Ritter:
The cost-effectiveness and the logic must be examined.
Nic Rivera:
State and local restrictions are also consistent. The key is that federal restrictions are inconsistent.
Right, which doesn’t prohibit them from pursuing such wars because that is a right reserved to the states and localities; it is the federal government that requires explicit authorization in the Constitution for its actions to be constitutional, while states and localities reserve all rights not prohibited to them by the Constitution.
States and localities may legislate as they see fit on drugs under constitutional federalism, as is true for issues like abortion. The only constraints relate to cruel and unusual punishment, unreasonable search and seizure, and so on.
But the economic argument (which is true about prostitution as well, among other things) doesn’t make such prohibition by state and local governments inconsistent with the Constitution, which was the subject here. Also it is not necessarily at all an “egregious threat to personal freedom.” Freedom to abuse or harm not only one’s self but others has never been and is not now absolute.
I know that, which makes federal drug laws on individuals unconstitutional, obviously. (Interstate drug transport is subject to federal authority, though not as a backdoor regulation on individual possession or use.) In fact, much of what the federal government does (where it is not authorized in the Constitution to do something, it nmay not do it) is unconstitutional and that’s been true since the 1930s (with widespread public support, which is why fidelity to the Constitution draws such funny looks and rude insults from so many, and is why Bork said any judge who won a ruling on constitutional federalism, which would invalidate 2/3 or more of what the federal government now does, would require bodyguards). This is aside from unconstitutional delegation of authority from Congress to the executive branch (all those agencies that issue regulations). I’m aware of the deeper problem of federal encroachment into state and local affairs. As a pragmatist I know this will continue (among other reasons, because so many like federal entitlements and prefer to look to the “national” government as the first rather than last resort for anything) and my practice is that of damage control and anticipating what the feds might try to do next. Just because I address what is bad and wrong doesn’t imply I accept or support it. It often will always be there and Plan B is to “deal with it.”
K. Ritter:
Yeah, this stopped clock can be that way once in a while.
Turning the War on Drugs issue into argument involving decency, normality, personal behavior is a straw man argument.
No such thing. I’m not “turning” or redirecting the argument; I’m reminding people of reality — drug use is hardly harmless. I’m hardly demonizing the practice, just being real. Too many reform advocates are either naive or dishonest about this reality. There is no straw man, though maybe a sacred cow is getting a taking down a little.
Libertarians are feinting all over the country. The rest of us are scratching our heads and wondering why?
Legalizing drugs would bring 6 million pages of legislation, regulation and syndication. There would be an entire new wing of the government formed to take care of drugs. New corporations would spring up growing poppies and producing Cocaine and Heroine.
We could then have Crack Clinics and Heroine awareness groups. Poppy farms springing up all over America.
Its a RED LETTER DAY for America when the Libertarians get to end the Drug war and declare drugs legal. Our streets filled with impaired drivers, more and more permanently injured people lying in nursing homes being cared for by our tax dollars.
Universal health care is a MUST now to take care of the sick and unproductive people who just sit around drinking, drugging and stealing for their drug and booze money.
Or the unproductive people who go to work stoned.
What? Huh? Make laws to regulate their activity? Why whatever for? You must be joking that is against the libertarians sacred oath. Just let them go to work stoned and cut off fingers in the slicer or fall in the cement mixer.
How dare you regulate the workplace and make it safe! Why Thomas Jefferson would be outraged. He never intended for us to have laws that were good for Americans that might actually not make ALL Americans happy.
Druggies should be able to cut off their fingers if they want and then go to the UNIVERSAL HEALTH CLINIC and demand they be sewn on for FREE. On the way home honey could you pick me up a Pack of Crack and a quart of Heroin? While your at it get some Beer and some porno movies.
Thomas Jefferson would approve.
Um… it’s pleasant how argumentation has been lowered to the painting of cartoonish examples of those with whom you wish you were having your argument.
Hypothetically, if someone picked up a nice supply of crack cocaine on the way home from a long, hard day at the office…this would be a bad thing?
I enjoy a beer or two every now and then after work. It’s very legal. It can be relaxing. If I drank too many, I’d get drunk, and I’d be a hazard to society. It’s a good thing I don’t do that. I could violate any number of laws if I did that then went for a ride.
Those laws can just as easily apply to heroine.
I don’t see why we need to make cartoon devils out of opponents.
The war on drugs makes no sense constitutionally. It makes no sense practically. And with our morals about recreational drinking, it makes no sense morally. It makes no sense econmically. And it makes no sense socially.
And I’ve never used a single narcotic illegally in my life. So, paint me as a fingerless, rabid, poor black man looking to vote democrat if you so choose, but all you’re doing is wasting your breath.
As was stated in the debate we need to make drug abuse a public health issue, not a law enforcement issue. Make the laws governing drug use basically the same as alcohol except where the drug involved is honestly a worse threat to health. One big problem with how this has all played out is that since many people realize how much they are lied to about the effects of pot they don’t trust what they’re told about other drugs, even when they really are worse for them.
Tell that to the families of those who’ve died on account of SWAT teams raiding the wrong home and killing innocent people in the process.
Specious argument. How does someone smoking pot or snorting cocaine in the privacy his own living room harm anyone but himself?
Specious argument. How does someone smoking pot or snorting cocaine in the privacy his own living room harm anyone but himself?
It’s when that person smoking pot in their home decides to “chill out” for a day, even if that means taking the kids to school. Or maybe the person snorting coke gets a bad dose, their family member finds them, face down in their own blood, due to an overdose.
There is no absolute answer to the war on drugs. Yes, “zero tolerence” is the addictive personalities forbidden fruit. Also, having no, or at least, very lineate laws on drugs can open up a plethora of health issues in epidemic porportions. Also the effects would move from the disproportionate levels in the inner city, to dramatic levels in all sectors of society. Given the state of our health care system now most of these people would not be covered for “free rehab”. We have made huge steps in spreading the awareness of the effects of smoking, which has taken decades to finally see the results.
Alot of these comments are based on a legal or zero tolerance stance. I say be the moderate that you are and think outside the box. I’d like to see some of these candadates come up with solutions besides the waste the tax payers money by throwing them in prison one. I would want the next president to set up a “jaywalking” law for marijuana, extemely low convictions and minscule penalties. This would bring down the need for violent dealers. The pot smoker would then buy his pot from the same places he buys his parphanalia, in little “head shops”. Now with the more illicit drugs I would like to see a more creative plan. I feel that the government i.e the tax payers should pay for a state funded rehab for people with 3 or more drug arrests(non-distributing). So where do we put all these future rehabbies. Well instead of the state putting these dealers in prisions for an allotted tenure, the dealers should be forced to build the rehab facialites for the people they have helped destroy. Yes some of you are saying how would you control these inmates. Well right now if you escape from prison you are liable to be shot on site. Second, working outside in a structured enviornment not only gives these people a sense of worth, but also gives them a skill to be used in the outside world, giving the offender a choice to be a legal worker.
This is a viable option to the failed drug war we have endured for the past 35 years. Lets actually count our lossess and start figuring out a better option then letting a human being and our tax dollars rot in a much needed cell.
Those laws can just as easily apply to heroine.
Ahh but you see this is not what the Libertarians want. They do not want laws or legislation at all. They want the drugs to flow and a government to butt out.
They use this trite argument that the government should stay out of peoples lives yet nothing the government does is without effects upon the citizens its rules.
But to listen to Nick and company it should be OKAY to sell drugs to 1st graders…………..WHAT? YOU mean your opposed to that? So we need a law to prevent that in your world????
Well gosh why is it YOU get to pick and choose your LAWS but the rest of us DO NOT????
Nick and company would allow you to drug yourself silly in the comfort of your own home. However you then should be able to fire up a joint on the way to work. At break time you get to go out too specially created break rooms and shoot up. Maybe slap down a tab or two of LSD and then go back to work on the next space shuttle launch.
WHAT? You mean your opposed to this type of PUBLIC behavior at work? YOU MEAN we need laws to regulate this type of activity?
Why is it you get to pick and choose what laws we get and which ones we dont? Why are your laws any better then the rest of the laws us ordinary citizens agree are necessary?
This is such a spurious argument.
The legalization of drugs is nothing more then a boon for the ME, ME, ME, I want it know, uber liberals who then want to regulate it, Medicate it, control it and turn it into a big business.
And to top it all off they then want HEALTH CARE to pay for all the medical ills that are created by this deviant behavior.
But alchoholics cause similar problems in our society and we don’t prosecute anyone for drinking too much. You can still prosecute the drug user for crimes committed while under the influence of drugs- just as you prosecute those committed while drunk. Neither is a desirable habit for society, but the argument is not about morality- its about effeciveness of the War on Drugs. A child who has a drug user for a parent may still be better off with that parent out of jail- even if the parenting is not ideal.
its about effeciveness of the War on Drugs
Because we are losing we should quit?
The typical liberal value…..its too hard therefore why try??
Should we quit fighting crime, after all statistically we are losing. Why try. We cant solve crime. Why fight terrorism, after all we are not winning therefore why try?
But alchoholics cause similar problems in our society and we don’t prosecute anyone for drinking too much
I have a friend whose daughter is in a wheel chair because of a drunk driver. The guy is terribly sorry for what he did but know what…..hes now serving time in jail because since destroying my friends daughters life he has been arrested two more times for DWI. The second time got him 5 years in prison.
Yet look at our laws for Drunkeness. We turn our blind eye to the activities of people. We wink, we plea bargain and we let them go only to do the same thing again and again until finally they hurt themselves, or hurt someone else. How many people are in jail because of doing something stupid while being drunk. Id bet its quite a few apologetic people.
Again this is a Moral and social habit that MUST BE LEGISLATED. The spurious argument that legalizing drugs will create less government is absurd. It will create even more government because now what do we do with a legalized drug trade?
Let it run helter skelter. Let home growers lace their coke with all kinds of chemicals and kill people right and left?….Do we regulate the drug trade in order to make sure Consumers are protected?
Of course we do….now you have an industry as big if not bigger then the Booze industry with massive Regulation and even BIGGER government and more LAWS, Rules and REgulations. Osha, Fema, etc….etc….
Don’t let them fool you. Abondoning the drug war is the first step in a massive legalization of drugs that will Destroy this country because no matter what spin you put on it……….Drugs are not healthy and are not good for any human body.
They know this. Thats why they are so in favor of Universal health Care.
Nic Rivera:
I’ve been against civil asset foreiture and I’m obviously not going to condone fatal raids in LA (where such a raid happened) or elsewhere; in the past I’ve discussed these because this is part of the “organized plunder” nature of civil asset forfeiture, where the authorities are so greedy they even attack the wrong households (those that are enticing). You in fact are building a straw man here because I’ve addressed the issue in a much, much broader context (the correct context) and obviously drug law enforcement doesn’t consist entirely or mainly of the worst abuses such as the SWAT raids.
> Freedom to abuse or harm not only one’s self but > others has never been and is not now absolute.
> Specious argument.
Absolutely false (pun intended).
When he’s spending money for that stuff needed for food or other essentials by him and the rest of his family, or if he’s doing that rather than going to work and risking losing his or his family’s livelihood, or if he chooses to go out and drive a car afterward…none of which are specious examples.
K. Ritter:
You mentioned this earlier and again here and you’re right. Except –
Actually, we’re starting to get better about that, K., such as punishing people who neglect their children (or even abuse their fetuses) by drinking when they shouldn’t.
There even are [gasp] bars and restaurants that now have a drink-limit policy or are better about cutting off those that are behaving as though they have had too much to drink, there is the call-a-cab policy, etc. I’ve even seen the cops call a cab for someone in a shopping center whom they suspected of being intoxicated — “If you come back to retrieve your vehicle, you will be arrested.” (amusing to witness)
Only children would whine about reasonable limits on how much alcohol you could purchase and consume at any time, or about laws that codified this practice. It’s neither slavery nor tyranny, simply being reasonable about authority while also being reasonable about liberty.
Actually, that combination is true about most activists in favor of drug reform. It really is about no limits on personal behavior while also receiving entitlements. Libertarians do not want to see the entitlements. Libertarians are childishly “ME, ME, ME” if they want no limits whatsoever. (That would support, by the way, child labor as well as renting or selling one’s children for any purpose.)
We rethink and revise, rather than simply surrender.
That applies to our enemies in the Middle East, too, incidentally.
One option is to realize we aren’t necessarily tough enough. Look at Singapore or Malaysia. I do not believe that is the way we should do things, but it certainly is intellectually sound to recognize that we have options both more tough as well as more loose. (The same is true for us in the Middle East.)
Yet look at our laws for Drunkeness.
They have been improving and I suspect they will continue to improve, to more properly punish truly wrongful behavior. They will improve as our culture changes. Though we have much room for improvement, we are less tolerant of drunk driving than we have been before. It’s a start.
I would say that it’s simply coincidental; the childish, self-centered people who want no limits on their personal conduct (overwhelmingly libertine, not libertarian) also want entitlements. It’s ME, ME, ME accompanied by GIMME, GIMME, GIMME. (There are plenty of other people who want federal health care and many of them are similar to the drug activists; then there are others who don’t care about changing drug laws but want federal health care for other reasons, not necessarily because they want a federal entitlement but they don’t see anything else as an equally good or better solution to how things are.)
That should not be interpreted as a fast track to new entitlements. Also, when that abuse harms others, it remains potentially or actually a law enforcement issue (such as child neglect or abuse).
We rethink and revise, rather than simply surrender.
Well ordinarily I would agree with you however after listening to the Antiwar, Antidrugwar, Anticonservative, Antirepublican, Antiscotus, Anticonservativetalkshowradio crowds I disagree. I think they certainly do want to quit and let the country run wild while they personally decide which laws should be enforced and which laws should not.
That the deciding factor is not based in realism but some utopian concept that the world will just leave them alone and they can go merrily on their drug induced bender without consequences and without repercussions.
That somehow all this productivity and economic prowess will continue unabated with a country full of drug filled, booze guzzling self absorbed Utopia seekers.
The vision of America is one in which every American with the exception of all conservatives are allowed to do or say what they want without consequences because::
If they can just be in charge and MAKE you understand then their will be no contentious arguments and the whole wide world will love us and Let us be to seek our destiny which is a hospital bed in a rehab clinic because or livers or kidneys will shut down shortly if we dont take a break from our “Social Rights.”
Another strawman argument, this time from Somebody.
Alcohol remains legal, and yet we don’t allow stores to sell alcohol to lst graders, do we?
Your argument has nothing to do with the War on Drugs and everything to do with age of consent.
There are plenty of things that we do not permit young children to do: get married, drive an automobile, make business contracts, engage in sex. Yet we haven’t enacted wholesale bans against getting married, driving an automobile, making business contracts, or engaging in sex, have we.
The overwhelming majority of Libertarians recognize that determining the age of consent is within the purview of individual state governments (not the federal government).
Your use of “Libertarians want it to be okay to sell drugs to 1st graders” in order to justify drug prohibition is the typical strawman argument that Bill O’Reilly employs.
My discussion is focused EXCLUSIVELY on those who would have us abandon the drug war and seek legalization of drug trafficking.
I am not assailing Liberals or conservatives who want Universal health care for legitimate concerns. Or who want government benefits as safety nets for those in needs.
I am focused exclusively on the Libertarians and liberals and I suppose some conservatives who want to abandon the drug war and by default begin the legalization of the industry itself.
Actually, Somebody, prohibition (which you are endorsing) is a utopian concept. Alcohol Prohibition pretty much proved that point back in the 1920′s.
Alcohol remains legal, and yet we don’t allow stores to sell alcohol to lst graders, do we?
No…there are laws regulating that.
There are plenty of things that we do not permit young children to do:
Right….there are laws regulating that.
Your use of “Libertarians want it to be okay to sell drugs to 1st gradersâ€
Im dissappointed in you Nic. I thought I would get a better argument from you on this one. You only quoted the half you could make an argument against and make me look silly.
MY QUOTE.
But to listen to Nick and company it should be OKAY to sell drugs to 1st graders…………..WHAT? YOU mean your opposed to that? So we need a law to prevent that in your world????
Of course most rational people understand that we cannot sell drugs to 1st graders. The point was simply that YOU want to determine which laws and WHO (USA or STATES)get to control the law making.
This is what makes your entire argument about legalizing drugs silly. The fact that you want less laws and regulations but by its nature you would require massive amounts of rules, laws and regulations to keep this country safe from itself in YOUR world.
What? Less laws and regulations will lead to more laws and regulations? Nowhere did I make an argument for more laws and regulations. You seem to imply that this in inevitable based upon your slippery slope arguments.
I ask you this, Nobody:
For all the ills of alcohol, was America (on the whole) worse off or better off by ending Alcohol Prohibition?
and businesses, of course, and maybe all non-liberal whites or males someday as “retribution”*
True, accompanied by entitlements galore and an even more lucrative LegaLottO to reward misfortune of any kind, so that any bad consequences become good consequences.
Robert Bork has changed over the years and has become a curmudgeon (and a hypocrite filing a junk lawsuit after slipping from a dais where he was speaking), but both his earlier writings (particularly “The Tempting of America”) and later exposition on social norms versus libertinism and often an intentional destruction of societal norms and hostility toward decency and virtue (“Slouching Towards Gomorrah”) are quite good reading, even if you’re much more libertarian than the true conservative (“social conservative,” in particular, here) and authoritarian that he can be. Specifically regarding this subject, the radicalism of the Left since the 1960s has included a desire not only toward pathological collective guilt over the USA’s high achievements (especially relative to those of many other nations), but a nihilistic, destructive, degenerate, perverse anti-US and anti-US-mainstream-culture orientation accompanied also (most relevent) by moral relativism and hedonistic, libertine excess — demanding, as if they were toddlers, no limits whatsoever on whatever they want to do; they expect the world to say “yes” or at least not say “no” to anything they do or want to do personally.
Government is not tyrannical when it imposes reasonable limits on, and even proscribes certain kinds of, behavior.
Some who call themselves libertarians (who don’t understand the political philosophy correctly) fall into line with their radical leftist counterparts in seeking not minimal government, with the burden of proof properly on government and advocates of interventionism in each case, but in fact anarchy when personal conduct is the issue, and that is [gasp] bad as well as wrong.
* The radical left claims there is no such thing as good and bad, right and wrong — but the USA is bad and wrong, also the West and Israel.
The radical left demands absolute “freedom” when it comes to personal conduct, but authoritarianism or even totalitarianism when it comes to the rights of businesses.
The radical left demands equality for everyone — but wants to favor traditional minorities and to treat whites, especially religious or Southern whites, in a punitive fashion, as well as (white) males sometimes, because they are bad, wrong, or inferior. The same is true about mainstream USA versus alternative or foreign cultures.
How many radical leftists want no restrictions on drug use and then want to salve the consequences by seeking more entitlements for victims of drug abuse? They actually have company among many less radical liberals (who believe in the entitlements already) and misguided libertarians who wish to subject too much of the wrong kinds of things to the “honor system.” (That is where I diverge from my basic libertarian life philosophy — where the real world says the ideal is imposssible or impractical or simply harmful.)
More than one person in the Soviet Union was hoping for this before the end of the Cold War.
M. Sweeney:
I feel that the government i.e the tax payers should pay for a state funded rehab for people with 3 or more drug arrests(non-distributing). So where do we put all these future rehabbies.
The rehab should be required, a probation condition. Most of them could probably be allowed to remain at home and work (they would have to do their rehab during non-work hours; we should not be paying for a vacation during rehab; they are not Hollywood celebrities who can afford their own time off). If they fail rehab, if they don’t complete it, if they consume and harm someone, off to jail they go. If they are caught violating after they have completed rehab, off to jail they go. They had their chance. And while they did, we were able to save money and prison space.
There is nothing cruel or unusual about this, so don’t anyone bother making such a false accusation.
No, one set of regulations (current drug laws) would be replaced by another, larger set of regulations that would address the new industry and classes of various recreational drugs for sale. It would be larger, given the model we already have, which in the real world would be the beginning for any additional drugs — alcoholic beverages, if all drugs were treated in the same way. But, as nobody in the real world expects all drugs — not only marijuana but cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, the hallucinogens, or current drugs only available by prescription that would become available for recreational use (barbiturates, opiods in addition to heroin) — to be treated the same, of course there would be much more complicated, many more laws than just the alcohol model would necessitate, and certainly far more than currently exist to prohibit illicit drug use.
For all the ills of alcohol, was America (on the whole) worse off or better off by ending Alcohol Prohibition?
Better, but many drugs are worse than alcohol, and society is engaged in a rational trend toward less tolerance for abuse of alcohol, and we anticipate new, more restrictive laws in some instances in the future. Not only is abuse and the harm it causes a problem, but even “non-abuse” is frequently harmful and once we have universal health care in particular with costs to taxpayers, that will be even more of an impetus to exercise more control over alcohol use, tax it to recover costs associated with its use as well as abuse, etc. Plenty of do-whatever-you-want liberals who don’t condone abuse, and health care activists, already would like to see taxes raised on alcohol and tobacco not as sumptuary (“sin”) taxes to discourage their use but to recover the health care and other costs attributable to their use.
I hope you realize that marijuana and any other legalized drug would be so taxed someday. That is before any consideration of taxes in addition to those, by a government desperate to find revenue to pay for health care of all kinds, and other entitlements.
It’s not merely utopian. It works if the penalties are harsh enough or the culture otherwise disfavors the use. Look at Malaysia and Singapore.
Also, don’t confuse reasonable restrictions with Prohibition. To call them both Prohibition would indeed be engaging in straw-man argumentation.
Let me see if I understand your argument, DLS.
You’re arguing that if we get rid of the War on Drugs, this will lead a bunch of bureaucrats to enact more laws. Therefore, in order to minimize the number of laws we have, we should just keep the War on Drugs.
If that is the case, then I ask you to consider all the laws we have on the books in terms of cigarettes, ranging from laws prohibiting smoking in bars to laws prohibiting cigarette companies from using cartoon characters to sell their products to laws prohibiting cigarette companies from advertising their products within a certain distance from schools to laws mandating that cigarette be kept locked up in stores . . .
If, in one fall swoop, Congress could pass a law making cigarettes/smoking illegal, thereby replacing all the laws I mentioned above with a single law (prohibition), would you support it?
I’ve debated a lot of libertarians. But I’ve never met even one that advocates universal health care or the abolition of laws against public drunkenness or impairment when such endangers other people. Even most libertarians (whom I oppose for pragmatic reasons unrelated to this issue) acknowledge the need for some laws regulating individual behavior. Those who don’t are more properly called “anarchists” than libertarians, and I don’t think their arguments are either intellectually serious or politically influential in any way.
For all the ills of alcohol, was America (on the whole) worse off or better off by ending Alcohol Prohibition?
Lets look at alcohol and its effects.
Drinking incurs health problems. Many health problems. Our jails are full of people who are sorry for their crimes committed when severely under the influence of alcohol. Our hospitals are full of sick people with failing livers and kidneys. Rehab clinics are full. An industry has sprung up that has required massive amounts of legislation and regulation.
We have an arm of Government called Alcohol, Drugs and Firearms. There goal is to investigate, interdict and restrain the abuses these lead too. Prohibition lead to one law. Booze is illegal. Therefore stop the booze. No drinking.
The legalization of such led to 1000′s of laws, a branch of government and health issues that know no end.
Is America better off with Booze legalized. I would heartily say NO….not only NO but hell no.
Now you want to do the same with the prohibiton on Drugs. Legalize them. Doing so will result in a massive increase of this nations government size to regulate an entire new industry.
Your advocation for legalizing drugs has unintended consequences. 1000′s of new rules, laws and regulations along with no telling how great a size of increase in the government to insure that consumers are protected from tainted drugs, etc.
So to answer you question Drugs and Booze are no good for America. Yet other then those who are just alcholics, Booze is not addicting. Convince me Heroine, Cocaine, Crack, Meth, and other drugs are not addicting???
What you do in the comfort of your own home IN A IDEAL WORLD should not be of concern to Americans:
But when you stumble out of your house, high on crack, get in your 24,000 lb dually and drive down the same road with my daughter and her children……then Put me firmly in the NO category.
Jason I built a strawman and then argued against it using Libertarians views….I wished people would actually read my posts before slamming me.
I quote:
But to listen to Nick and company it should be OKAY to sell drugs to 1st graders…………..WHAT? YOU mean your opposed to that? So we need a law to prevent that in your world????
Well gosh why is it YOU get to pick and choose your LAWS but the rest of us DO NOT????
The point I am making is that Libertarians are hypocrits. They want to legalize drugs and then pretend there will be no massive amounts of government laws that go along with that in order to ensure this nation does not flush itself down the toilet.
Nick Rivera:
You understand the most recent argument that I actually made.
Yes. That is inevitable given what I’ve described already. Lots of different drugs, lots of new laws.
No, that is not my conclusion, but only yours. I have advocated long-overdue reforms, including ending the misuse of prison where it is not merited or cost-effective, and ending civil asset forfeiture, for example. I’m even willing to recognize some forms of legalization, such as marijuana for adults. You are mistaken to conclude anyone who isn’t naive and as ambitious as possible about drug reform wants to remain with the status quo, and I’m surprised you conclude this given I have posted more than once I advocate serious reform.
Sometimes we have to accept more laws, not fewer, as a consequence of reforms we seek. That’s what we would face here. That is the (real) argument here.
Who’s advocating universal health care? I most certainly didn’t.
Mike Gravel has, but he’s not a libertarian, nor has he ever claimed to be.
I know. I was pointing out that Somebody’s comments relied on a strawman misrepresentation of libertarian views.
Also, his analogy to Prohibition (of alcohol) actually defeats his case, since unsafe alcohol consumption was probably more common under Prohibition than afterward. “Speakeasies” were pervasive in many areas during Prohibition and the illicit nature of alcohol acted socially as an incentive to consumption rather than a deterrent.