cannabisnews.com: Just Say 'Yes' to Drug War?





Just Say 'Yes' to Drug War?
Posted by FoM on March 07, 2001 at 07:09:57 PT
By Joel Miller
Source: WorldNetDaily
Conservatives are a peculiar bunch when it comes to drugs. While they smoke cigars and quaff jiggers of scotch, they drum their hands in thunderous applause when a pol says we should get tough on drugs, prosecute the pill-poppers and jail the junkies. Why? Because drugs are bad, of course. To mention otherwise, even for argument's sake, is sure to get you pelted with insults and possibly given the bum's rush. 
Besides announcing your approval for the legalization of pedophilia, there is precious little that will get you booted out of an Eagle Forum rally quicker than speaking in favor of decriminalizing PCP. Unless you're talking about pedophiles using PCP, of course. Except canonizing Bill Clinton, there is nothing worse in some conservative circles than recommending that we quit the effort to "undo drugs." It's the right wing's eternal cause célèbre, regardless of one glaring problem: It's amazingly unconstitutional and harmful to American liberty. To wit: In enforcing drug laws, police rely on random searches of people and their property, in complete disregard for the Fourth Amendment's requirement of probable cause. Further violating the Fourth, cops use broad and ambiguous character and racial profiling methods that bring scores of regular citizens under police scrutiny, regardless of actual wrongdoing. (Conservatives, like San Francisco talk radio host Michael Savage, are currently, er, savaging President Bush for suggesting these profiling policies be re-evaluated.) The Fifth Amendment gets similar disrespect from narcowarriors afflicted by seizure fever. Sloughing off weighty constitutional concerns, police regularly nab property without due process and use filched goods to pad police department accounts. Pitching lofty aphorisms like "to protect and to serve" to the wind, police even utilize no-knock raids on people's homes. Famous for their shoot-first-ask-questions-later tactics, these military-like attacks endanger the innocent by placing them literally in the line of fire. Further, the desire to widen the warfront has led federal bureaucrats to try skirting Congress to gain their objectives -- showing little more than fanatical ambition and disdain for the constitutional balance of powers by dodging the legislative process. And while party loyalists and grass-rooters may push for harsher prosecution of the drug war on principle, politicians rarely do it out of any sense of morality or duty. Usually ramming drug-control legislation through Congress has much more to do with politicking and one-upmanship than statesmanly concern for the commonwealth -- just tapping into the public's deep well of fear and the twin constituencies of prohibitionists and law-and-order types. Ignoring all of that, however, the conservative crusaders, blistering with eagerness, demand we press ever-onward -- waging war on dope with Gen. Patton-like determination and Gen. Sherman-like tactics. Any slack in the offensive is seen as dangerous to the cause, deleterious in its effect. And President Bush is beginning to feel the heat of the battle, some of which, like the fiery darts from San Francisco's Savage, is being directed straight at him. As the conservatives scan the scene, it's been nearly seven weeks since Bush placed his hand on the Bible and swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic, and they worry he's already broken the vow when it comes to domestic enemies: druggies and their dealers. To date, Bush has left the position of drug czar as empty as he left Al Gore's hopes and dreams some months back. Former Clinton Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey has bowed out, leaving his assistant to run the show, and rumor has it that the czar will not even keep a seat in Bush's Cabinet. Anxious to axe the addicts, the right is restless over W's neglect. Attorney General John Ashcroft's statement about wanting to "reinvigorate the drug war" isn't cutting it. Conservatives need action, and Bush is giving about as much as a joint without a match. "For a nation in which addiction has become a chronic problem and drugs take a devastating toll, that does not inspire confidence," says conservative columnist Don Feder, going on to place a classified ad, of sorts: Wanted: A drug czar like William J. Bennett -- who will bang the bully pulpit till the wood splits, confront the drug lobby in the ballot arena, and not neglect supply reduction and punishment. This is not a comforting thought. No doubt an upstanding character who turns out a good book every now and then, Bill Bennett nonetheless falls right into the "awful" category when it comes to drug-czaring. His conception of the dope war is rigorous enforcement from the top, regardless of the federal government lacking any constitutional warrant to do so. Any other option is out, as far as Bennett is concerned -- especially talk of scaling back the war or, horror of horrors, legalizing. Back when he was the nation's drug czar, Bennett gave a very impassioned address at Harvard University, expressing opposition to legalization, calling it a "scandalous position, intellectually and morally scandalous," likewise dubbing it the "policy of neglect." Does "intellectually and morally scandalous" adequately describe conservative heroes like Charles Murray, Bill Buckley, James Bovard, Thomas Szasz and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, all of whom view the drug war as bad news? In a 1997 feature in Intellectual Capital, Buckley (strangely enough) interviewed himself on the subject of legalization. The question: "If you could come up with ways to drastically reduce or eliminate drug consumption, would you endorse them?" His answer: "No. Because the only way to move beyond where we already have arrived is to imitate the anti-drug policies of Singapore. You can't do that and have civil liberties at the same time." In an open letter to Bennett, published in the Wall Street Journal during Bennett's stint as drug czar, Friedman wrote, The path you propose of more police, more jails, use of the military in foreign countries, harsh penalties for drug users, and a whole panoply of repressive measures can only make a bad situation worse. The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish. Yet, Bennett basically thinks conservatives like Friedman and Buckley are intellectually dishonest. "They've made up their minds," he said to his Harvard audience, "and they don't want to be bothered with further information or analysis, further discussion or debate. ..." In other words, legalizers are pigheaded. But if anyone is suffering from sow-pate syndrome it's Bennett and conservatives who share his attitude about drugs. Their idea of continuing the "debate," is asking repeatedly, "Don't you agree with us yet?" Fact is, they don't care at all about debate. And despite protestations to the contrary, they don't care about the Constitution, either. If they did, they wouldn't so casually dismiss charges of drug-war abuse and wouldn't rankle Bush for his reluctance to charge full-speed ahead. Instead, they are exposed as the people who "don't want to be bothered with further information or analysis, further discussion or debate." When a loyal right winger breaks ranks and begins to cast aspersions on the dope war -- such as Paul Craig Roberts recently has with his 2000 book, "The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice" -- they just ignore him. Conservative media outlets have been fairly hush-hush about Roberts' book. Better to turn the other direction when one of your own points the accusatory finger. It figures. The enthusiasts want their war on drugs, and don't bother them with facts and figures about damage inflicted to the Constitution. Besides, if they keep it up, there won't be much of one left to defend, anyway. Joel Miller is the commentary editor of WorldNetDaily. E-Mail: jmiller worldnetdaily.comSource: WorldNetDaily (US Web)Author: Joel MillerPublished: March 7, 2001Fax: (541) 597-1700Copyright: 2001, WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.Address: PO Box 409, Cave Junction, OR 97523-0409Contact: letters worldnetdaily.comWebsite: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/CannabisNews Articles - Joel Millerhttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=Joel+Miller
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by Bagpipe Dude on March 13, 2001 at 05:58:45 PT
yawn.. more GOP talk
My take on this... Corruption. The tougher the laws get, the better business gets. Anyone who makes money, likes the market the way it is, and wants to keep things going, or make business better will send money to Washington. How many of these Congressman and Senators recieve free product for "keeping the market the way it is" ?? How many of these politician are treated to hookers paid for with free product?? But, but but they are republicans, they are on high moral ground etc ad nausiem. They have Vanity and Pretense, as some of you might know vanity and pretense are the very cornerstones of Satan worship. Doesnt impress me one bit, but voters love it.These GOP high moral grounders are nothing but cowards and idiots. Focus your investigative efforts at City Hall, you will net bigger fish, and actually have a winning effect with this Drug War of yours. Dont be such cowards. NAil your buddies at city hall.One of these times I might go ahead and author a ballot amendment that "fights Beavis with Butthead" make Lettuce Illegal, along with other dangerous plants in the garden. Wormwood, marigolds, moon flower, columbines. A balot initiative that stupid would get people talking about how stupid the laws are already.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on March 07, 2001 at 17:47:45 PT:
Bang on target
Joel Miller has masterfully pointed out the Achille's heel of the antis: their close-mindedness and porcine inability to face facts as they are, preferring to demand, as he put it:Yet, Bennett basically thinks conservatives like Friedman and Buckley are intellectually dishonest. "They've made up their minds," he said to his Harvard audience, "and they don't want to be bothered with further information or analysis, further discussion or debate. ..." In other words, legalizers are pigheaded. But if anyone is suffering from sow-pate syndrome it's Bennett and conservatives who share his attitude about drugs. Their idea of continuing the "debate," is asking repeatedly, "Don't you agree with us yet?" I couldn't have put it better; antis are like the child whose only response to criticisms is a constant and annoying "I know you are, but what am I?" At one point, they simply refused to admit that there was any 'other side' besides theirs. They adamantly refused to acknowledge, except in the most disparaging terms, that an opposition to their policies exist.Well, it's too late for that. But since they can no longer ignore us, they have adopted another tactic: now they are forced to heap calumnies upon the reform movement, in the hopes that their bombast can drown out the voice of reason. But it's too late for that, tooAs time goes by, we can measure our success in the climbing decibel rate of the anti's shrillness; since they haven't anything original to say, they must rely on screaming their lies - and epithets - ever louder. Bennett's example should be heartening to us all. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by QuietCrusader on March 07, 2001 at 11:13:02 PT:
Yes, that was great.
And excellent commentary from the good observer, hitting the nail on the head.
Make A Leap of Faith
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by observer on March 07, 2001 at 08:27:23 PT
The Crusade
Another great article by Joel Miller!...The enthusiasts want their war on drugs, and don't bother them with facts and figures about damage inflicted to the Constitution.Gung-ho prohibitionists are on a Jihad. A holy war. An Inquisition. A crusade. In their own words, "Today we initiate this great crusade. . . I pledge a war without mercy." http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n139/a04.html Prohibitionists have always characterized themselves as being in a moral/religious battle against evil. This quality of the prohibitionist movements eliminated the option of compromise. The choice as they saw and presented it was total prohibition or total access to the hated drugs. It was not that other methods of controlling use did not exist or would not work; it was the idea that all usage was sinful and must be stopped. Like an ongoing morality play, this same issue gets played out-repeatedly today with a new cast of characters.Themes in Chemical Prohibition, NIDA, 1979 http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ticp.html  
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: