cannabisnews.com: The War Over The War on Drugs The War Over The War on Drugs Posted by FoM on May 07, 2001 at 15:44:25 PT By Mark Haskew Source: Family Research Council In 1996, National Review, a long-running magazine that almost embodies conservatism, published an issue with seven articles. While taking different tacks on the same topic, all of those articles blared one theme: that the drug war has not been and cannot be won. In the following weeks, hundreds of fellow conservatives wrote to NR, complaining about the stance it had taken. This happened six years ago, but the debate among conservatives has not changed much since then. Conservative voices all over the country are still arguing over whether we should continue to fight drugs, or just give up and legalize them. Yet I believe conservatives are not as divided on this issue as it may appear. It seems clear that the minority of conservatives is for legalization; most conservatives are still against it. They see the damage that drugs have caused and do not want to see that social damage expanded, and they believe that this is what legalization would do. In a 1999 FRC poll, 69 percent of conservatives said they thought violent crime would increase if drugs like heroin and cocaine were legalized. Almost three-quarters of conservatives said they would oppose giving needles to addicts to slow the spread of AIDS if it meant increasing drug use among kids. Some of those who sound conservative and who support legalization are more rightly classified as libertarians. Libertarians are allied with traditional conservatives on some issues but diverge noticeably on others. Basically, libertarians believe that government should get out of the regulation and lawmaking business as much as possible. From a conservative point of view, this can be good in the context of some issues, such as the desire to reduce taxes and combat over-regulation, but it can be bad in others, such as abortion and drug use. Those who argue from this perspective often say that they are personally against drug use but feel that government cannot stop it and, what’s more, should not even attempt to stop it. Libertarians believe any negative results should be allowed by society and borne by the individual. Dr. Thomas Szasz iterated the stark libertarian position in a television program with fellow legalization advocate and National Review editor William F. Buckley: Buckley: "But the people who are worried about [drug legalization] are saying, ‘Look, a man loses his self-control if he becomes an addict.’" Dr. Szasz: "He should. He should commit suicide. He should die. That’s his proper, natural punishment." Buckley: "Well, there are people who would like to consider other alternatives than simply bumping him off." Dr. Szasz: "We are not bumping him off. He is bumping himself off." Conservatism certainly shares a bit of an anti-government streak with libertarians, but usually not to this degree. After all, ensuring the public safety is a legitimate role of the government. Furthermore, some legalizers argue that the illegality of drug use and the accompanying sums of money are what causes the violence associated with drugs. The facts, however, indicate that drug use itself is intimately tied to crime and violence. One team of researchers writes: "Acts of violence may result from either periodic or chronic use of a drug. For example, in a study of drug use and psychopathy among Baltimore City jail inmates, researchers at the University of Baltimore reported that cocaine use was related to irritability, resentment, hostility, and assault. They concluded that these indicators of aggression may be a function of drug effects rather than of a predisposition to these behaviors." Studies also show that many of those arrested were either high on drugs at the time or were regular drug users. In short, drug use affects the behavior of the individual who actually uses drugs, which in turn affects society in general, from child abuse and neglect to street crime to unruly students in classrooms. The majority of conservatives recognize that a lack of perfection in stopping drug use is not a reason to give up. After all, we still have murders, yet we recognize the need to continue the "war on murder." Conservatives who advocate drug legalization are a vocal minority and do no one any favors by distorting otherwise sound conservative principles. Mark Haskew is a drug policy analyst and special projects editor at the Family Research Council. Note: Should we just give up the fight?James A. Inciardi and Christine A. Saum, "Legalization Madness," The Public Interest, Spring 1996, p. 75. Source: Family Research CouncilAuthor: Mark Haskew Published: May 2001Website: http://www.frc.org/Feedback: http://www.frc.org/ie/yourturnsubmit.htmlNational Review Articles:Drug Warring: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8860.shtmlHigh Anxiety: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8764.shtmlThe Right Dope: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8736.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #4 posted by FoM on May 08, 2001 at 15:07:42 PT sm2347 Hi sm2347,Yes there is a problem with a few articles not being wrapped right. Most of the site is operating fine but there are still problems. That's why I'm not posting many articles until they are fixed. Then I'll get them all up! Thanks! Medical Marijuana Information Links [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by sm2347 on May 08, 2001 at 14:59:45 PT ????? In another embarrassing debacle at the United Nations, the United States was voted off the International Narcotics Control Board, a move the State Department on Monday called regrettable. The vote by secret ballot, not announced at the time, occurred last Thursday in the U.N. Economic and Social Council. The body's 54 members on the same day threw the United States off the U.N. Commission for Human Rights, the top U.N. rights group, based in Geneva. FoM I clicked on the link to read the whole story think the thread sent me the wrong way?? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on May 08, 2001 at 13:50:30 PT: And "He who pays the piper, call the tune..." "In the end, one envoy noted, the United States had not paid a dime of its promised monies to ameliorate the debt to the United Nations. ``And the Europeans have to pick up the bill,'' the diplomat added.And who are leading the charge on harm reduction? The Europeans. Who are quietly turning away from the US inspired Single Convention Treaty? The Europeans.Who are now in a position to declare the Single Convention Treaty de jure as well as de facto null-and-void because of the inability of the US to use the Narcotics Board position as a strong-arm?The Europeans.This is really, really rich. Back during the start of the Korean War, the US needed to get the the UN to sanction against North Korean aggression, freeing it to send troops. Because the Soviets had walked out in a huff, weren't present when the vote was taken, and couldn't exercise their veto powers, they lost big time. The Soviets never missed a vote again.Now the US may be in the same position regarding the matter of international cooperation in the DrugWar.You'd think the US would have learned the Korean Lesson, since it was the US that taught it to the world. I guess the political leaders here have now, I bet. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by schmeff on May 07, 2001 at 16:18:45 PT So why not make possession of booze a crime? Not that I really advocate that...we have enough behavior criminalized.If drug consumption really led directly to the user causing harm to others, the correct response for the application of government would be to see to it that those who sought to use such a drug could do so in a regulated atmosphere where they would be unable to harm anyone else.However, there is scant REAL SCIENCE that any of the popular ILLEGAL drugs cause the user to become belligerent towards one's fellow citizens, except for the obviously glaring example of alcohol.Mark is definitely hASKEW to cite a study about jail inmates and conclude that their cocaine use was responsible for irritability, resentment, hostility, and assault. I mean c'mon, you don't think that those characteristics might have something to do with the fact that the subjects ARE IN JAIL?If the Family Research Council is concerned about these traits being manifest in their fellow citizens, why would they not champion the use of cannabis? Cannabis users are mellow, helpful, friendly and gregarious. That's what makes us so tempting a target to feed the Police State. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: