Former Republican Representative Bob Barr was once a committed advocate of -- indeed, participant in -- the "war on drugs." One could assume that a change of heart was necessary for him to secure the Libertarian Party nomination for President. He explains why he now opposes the drug war here. An excerpt:
Bob Barr, formerly the War on Drugs loving, Wiccan mocking, Clinton impeaching Republican is the presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party.
Now, you may be asking how this happened and my answer is simple: "The libertarians won."
For more than three decades, the Libertarian Party and small "l" libertarians have done their part to prove to America that liberty is the answer to most of the problems that we face today. Over the past several years, I was one of the many people influenced by this small party.
Whether through the free market or by simply allowing families to make their own decisions regarding the education of their children, libertarians have taught us that liberty does truly work.
In stark contrast, when government attempts to solve our societal problems, it tends to create even more of them, often increasing the size and depth of the original problem. A perfect example of this is the federal War on Drugs.
For years, I served as a federal prosecutor and member of the House of Representatives defending the federal pursuit of the drug prohibition.
Today, I can reflect on my efforts and see no progress in stopping the widespread use of drugs. I'll even argue that America's drug problem is larger today than it was when Richard Nixon first coined the phrase, "War on Drugs," in 1972.
America's drug problem is only compounded by the vast amounts of money directed at this ongoing battle. In 2005, more than $12 billion dollars was spent on federal drug enforcement efforts while another $30 billion was spent to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders.
The result of spending all of those taxpayer's dollars? We now have a huge incarceration tab for non-violent drug offenders and, at most, a 30% interception rate of hard drugs. We are also now plagued with the meth labs that are popping up like poisonous mushrooms across the country.
While it is clear the War on Drugs has been a failure, it is not enough to simply acknowledge that reality. We need to look for solutions that deal with the drug problem without costly and intrusive government agencies, and instead allow for private industry and organizations to put forward solutions that address the real problems.
What a whore.
I think you would have a hard time arguing that Bob Barr is doing this because he really thinks he has a chance at becoming president, nor that this is doing his career any good (as opposed to staying as a mainstream Republican party affiliate).
It's easy to call people whores, but I think that all the evidence here is the opposite. Barr is destroying his career in elected politics and taking a stance with a marginal party on the basis of principle. You might disagree with his positions (and I do in many things, though I agree with him on this one), but this is anything but being a "whore."
Who knows....maybe some members of these gangs will go legit and their sons will become senators and presidents.
Um. How are those "libertarian" achievements? Not every government policy that increases individual freedom can be traced to libertarian influence. In fact, I'd be surprised if the Libertarian Party has had any influence on government policy whatsoever.
$30 billion may be a lot, but given the federal budget's current size, I have a hard time railing against high spending in one of the few legitimate areas of government expenditure (law enforcement).
If somebody knocks over a liquor store for drug money, you lock him up for armed robbery for 20 years instead of cutting him a deal to go after Scarface and a nice front page article of how great the cops are doing at taking down the dealers.
Personally i'd rather live in a world where Scarface is replaced by Walgreens and we are locking up violent felons for violent crimes instead of cutting them loose to go after big fish that only exist because of the prohibition. When was the last time Al Capone menaced Chicago btw?
...and Libertarians.
I'm not saying that's what he's doing, but I think the "he couldn't possibly be pandering" canard is weak. There's really no reason apart from principle NOT to run for President on the libertarian ticket. I know I - as a non-libertarian - would do it in a heartbeat, and Barr has about the same chance as I do of going anywhere in the Republican party.
I really dislike that argument, we can't start treating people based on what a prosecutor initially charged them with. If you are convicted of or plea to a non-violent crime then you are a non-violent offender, period. Just as often as offenders "getting of on" a lesser charge, the prosecutor initially way over-charges the crime. There is simply no way of knowing the validity of the initial charge vs. the plea, so if you weren’t convicted of a violent crime, you shouldn’t be treated as if you did (prohibitively long jail sentences). Punishing people for crimes they were not convicted of is a very dangerous road.
While I accept that the current plea bargaining system is a necessary evil (it would be ridiculously expensive to try every, or even a majority, of cases), prosecutors shouldn't, and the good ones don't, reduce truly violent crimes to low-grade non-violent pleas.
1.They dont literally run the city like the did during prohibition. Go watch The Untouchables.
2.They sure as hell dont survive by selling booze.
3.They survive largely BY SELLING &DISTRIBUTING DRUGS.
Ironic, isnt it.
Also, Barr does seem to raise the big question for prohibitionists--what exactly is their argument for believing that the drug war can be "won"? Is there any reasonable basis to believe that this will turn out differently from alcohol prohibition in the end? Or is the argument that the drug war is about containment, not winning?
And now just this year I had a policeman search my car even though I did NOT give him permission. And when I tried to file a complaint I was told "No harm, No foul". It is too high a price we pay.
It is my position that someone who got pwned in a past election, and who would sink into total political obscurity if he maintained his previous views, and who changes his views in a desperate attempt to remain in the limelight, is a whore.
It's easy to call people whores, but I think that all the evidence here is the opposite. Barr is destroying his career in elected politics and taking a stance with a marginal party on the basis of principle.
Balderdash. His career as a conservative Republican was deader than disco. Transforming himself into a libertarian, long shot though that is, was the only way to get any attention whatsoever. He could hardly suddenly pretend to be a liberal Democrat, after all.
Only five years ago his "principles" were completely different. Get real, he is a whore.
I believe Barr was making a reference to the libertarian ideology here and not the Libertarian party.
I'm only half-kidding. I guess that, like today, the rich would be better able to insulate themselves from crime than the poor. Still, I wonder if the drug war isn't often opposed in theory by suburbanites, but supported in practice because the costs are concentrated in the places they don't live, but the benefits (making illegal drugs slightly more scarce/expensive) may keep a few suburban kids off drugs.
I guess I'd expect an overall drop in crime (primarily drug crime) if we repeal drug prohibition, but also a substitution to other crimes, with potentially different distribution of costs.
In their neighborhoods certainly. If you dont think the mafia is heavy into drugs you've been watching the godfather too much.
Heh. Sure, i dont know much about Chicago. I'm not going to get into a virtual pissing contest with you, but i'm pretty confident i have more first hand experience with how this city runs than you do. The Daleys run this city with more power than the outfit ever had. They have their businesses and their neighborhoods, but again you sound like you get your information from Law and Order episodes. If there are a hundred made men left in town i'd be shocked, in fact i know for a fact their arent. If you think DiFronzo meets Daley in dark alleyways to drop off envelopes youve seen too many movies. Chicago is as corrupt as you'll find, but its white collar these days. Friends and family get contracts steered to them, but guys arent getting their legs broken for not delivering a construction project for the most part. The outfit runs this city about as much as the Vatican does.
Regardless, the point is the Mafia was by far, and without question at is most powerful during prohibition and because of prohibition. Prohibition creates organized crimes and gangs as surely as water is wet.
Look at things from an economic point of view. Drugs create resources for criminals because they are extremely profitable. They also create a huge incentive for crime, again, because they are extremely profitable.
Implicit in your post is the idea that criminals are criminals and if they cant rob a bank, theyll burn down a building just for kicks. That may be true in some ways, but that is a small percentage of the problem. Most people (even criminals, even dopers) are rational actors to some extant. If slinging crack or selling pot out of your locker gives you money and status in your community that you cant find elsewhere, its lucrative. The alternative may or may not be, but it doesnt follow that an absence of crime leads to different crimes. You can follow the percentage of locked up young men in an urban area from the invention of crack like a graph. If your theory was sound there would have been just as much crime before crack but in other 'fields', and all those criminals would move to selling crack leading to a decline in other crimes. That didnt happen- in fact the crack crisis created all kinds of additional unrelated crime (certainly something to do with the breakdown of social law and order).
hopelessly naiveyour privilege.Just because you like the new "principles" he recently switched to, does not mean he isn't a whore.
correct. fwiw, imo there are two schools o' thought among the eliminate/fix the drug war, legalize/decrim crowd, and barr falls in the former below
the first thinks pretty much all illegal drugs (marijuana, etc.) are BAD and people would be better off not using them ever, etc. but that the war on drugs as a 'solution' is worse than the problem. iow, one can be for legalization/decrim of mj (and/or more "hard drugs") without thinking that they are the least bit benign or can be used responsibly.
the 2nd camp thinks some, many, all of the drugs currently illegal should also be legal/decrim because they aren't "bad" if used responsibly, and they can be used responsibly. iow, mj used occasionally and recreationally isn't BAD any more than alcohol, caffeine, etc. used responsibly are.
the 1st and 2nd camps are reluctant comrades in the war against the war against drugs.
i generally fall into the latter camp. personally, for example, i think mj is "hella lame" and not benign, but a joint on the weekend is no worse than a couple of beers. although i would never smoke mj if it was legal, because i think it's lame.
i also think cocaine can be used responsibly, but is riskier than mj for a # of reasons.
either way, i think it's retarded to jail drug users
talk crazy talkstake out an unambiguous policy position like an election he has no chance of winning.That is true on a personal level. But it doesn't make sense when discussing the penal system in general. If a lot of "nonviolent drug offenders" actually plea-bargained their way down from violent crimes, then it's wrong to claim that the penal system is just imprisoning people who didn't do anything but smoke some pot. It's imprisoning people who haven't been convicted of more than that, but who usually did more than that.
Is their any indication that a majority of the people want drugs legalized? At best pot use for "medical" purposes is supported and I bet Ohio, for instance, would vote against even that.
I don't really care whether or not others find this observation convincing.
Bob Barr changed his position with regards to FEDERAL drug laws many years ago. It is not a recent event.
As recently as 2002, he trumpeted "the constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotics, and the right of Congress to exert legislative control over the District of Columbia as the nation's capital."
According to wiki, only this month did he come out in favor of medical marijuana.
Re. DC: Congress has plenary powers over DC, right?
to be fair, there is nothing in the above quote that is inconsistent with being in favor of medical mj.
not to mention that mj is not a narcotic, but that's a bit picky
even if it was, it's still not inconsistent
I pretty much fall into this camp, with the exception of marajuana, which I would classify at about the same level of bad consequences as alcohol. I think the pro-legalizers do their cause a disservice when they act like there will not be negative consequnces if drugs are legalized. You make drugs legal and the use will go up and that will cause a lot of problems since many of these drugs are highly addictive, contribute to lots of very bad decision making, and have severe health consequences including death.
I was one of those suburban teenagers who only drank alcohol very occasionally until I was 21 and only tried pot once to see what it was like when I knew there was no chance I would get caught. I had a lot of fun doing these things, but was afraid of getting caught and punished and so stayed away from them for the most part. Some of the people I knew went ahead and did it anyways, but I also had a lot of friends in high school and college who did the same thing I did and stayed away primarily for fear of punishment.
i am in the other camp (i think many drugs that are illegal can be used responsibly), however i appreciate your pov.
the one thing i disagree with is that making these drugs legal (and./or decrim;ing) will make their use go up.
i think that MAY be true, otoh it may not
i hesitate to assume that's true. it may be similar to the myth that "more guns = more violent crime" that many anti-gunners make.
i also think there's a good argument that making them legal decreases the chances they will be abused, since many will be able to be used with doctor oversight, and they don't have the same desirability. frankly, the fact that they are illegal makes them desirable for a lot of people.
in regards to MJ, it is both non-addictive (physically) and there is no LD50 - iow, you can't die from it. you could die from cancer, but MJ doesn't need to be smoked.
again, i think mj is LAME, but i think Zima is lame too :)
Very few discussions of drug prohibition, here or elsewhere, do not include at least one accusation along the lines of "you just want to legalize drugs so you can take them with impunity". That accusation is either a conversation stopper or a flame war igniter. In either case it makes rational discourse difficult at best.
The second camp's position (some drugs are not very harmful) tends to attract that accusation, even if they have no inclination to use any drug, including legal ones. I have seen this happen frequently in both cyberspace and meatspace. Joining the first camp is sometimes just a preemptive defense tactic necessary to make rational conversation even possible.
and even as somebody who is pro mj legalization (or at least decrim), i am noticing that a fair amount of pretty robust research is starting to come out that is not exactly positive for mj to put it mildly.
and the slippery slopers are correct. many who are for (for example) medical MJ ***are*** using it as a slippery slope for full blown legalization (which is support), but to deny the slippery slope (which many legalization advocates do) is also disingenuous.
You are right that Zima is lame. It is however a very impressive way to market malt liquor to yuppy white people.
I am pretty sure that in places like Amersterdam the use has gone up, but that might be because Amersterdam was a destination for those who wanted to use legally. I hope you are right that if legalized the use won't increase that much, but I think casual use at least will. I suspect that the use of alcohol went up after prohibition ended (with the coinciding bad effects) because people like me would have increased their consumption once it became legal, but accurate stats for blackmarket items are hard to come by.
Unfortunately there will always be a large minority of people who can not control their drug and alcohol use and these people's actions have very negative consequences on themselves and others. Any legalization program will have to take this into account if it wants to gain popular support. I suspect that the vast majority of the population (including suburbanites) knows people, at least casually, whose lives were really messed up by illegal drugs. You are going to have to convince them that legalizing drugs on the balance won't lead to a lot more destroyed lives.
Like whit I want to question your assumption that drug use will go up if legalized. I've heard (but have no cites, and don't really know if it's true) that typically when drugs are legalized use goes up initially but then drops below previous levels. This makes sense to me. Those who haven't tried because of fear of legal troubles might try it, but as they are not risk-takers in general, most won't want to be impaired frequently, and assume all the risks that being impaired entails.
I've heard that use of hard drugs has gone up in Amsterdam, but that is mostly from immigrants who move there to use legally. Again, I don't know if that's true, but it makes sense to me (at least for nearby countries).
this is totally true. let's get real. DARE is total propaganda. and much of the what the DEA puts out is too. and don't even get me started on the mass media. congress with their anti-ephedrine anti-scientific hype was the last straw.
i've worked a long time undercover, hung out with a lot of dopers, and most of the anti-drug propaganda/lies HURT the cause of trying to decreaase drug abuse. it's boy who cried wolf. when you lie to people about one drug (mj and/or cocaine), then that makes people suspect you about everything.
i can state one thing about meth...
i know (especially whne i was undercover) tons of people who use all sorts of drugs recreationally and responsibly - from mj to cocaine, to LSD, etc. many, if not most, do not regret trying these drugs, and the only major negative they face is risk of getting caught. meth is the exception.
meth is FINALLY the drug that is as bad, or worse than the propagandists claimed about other drugs. the problem is they lied for so long, that nobody believes them.
almost every meth user i have ever met becomes addicted relatively quickly, and nearly all regret ever trying it. it really is that bad. not that i think meth users should be sent to jail, but meth IS the drug yer mommy warned you about.
a lot of the hype about meth labs blowin' up etc. is a bit overhyped. the hype about the noxiousness of the chemicals is not.
It brings up an interesting point- what to do about a drug that really, truly is almost certain to ruin your life, even with just a few uses.
My thought is that if you legalize every substance (its not really as crazy as it sounds, drug prohibition is actually a very new phenomenon. Like, 20th century new- a testament to the drug war that that sounds so radical to modern ears) you have a ton more money to spend on honest prevention and rehab. You remove the legal stigma of drug use that glamorizes it, and replace it with a social stigma... ie- you dont want to be like Uncle Ron, the meth adict with no teeth, its not secret and lurid anymore. I think that level of honestly and sunlight would cut down the number of experimenters with hardcore drugs. Especially since you can focus your efforts and resources. Pot sells itself, we're wasting money making that the front line. Being a toothless hillbilly tweaker that doesnt sleep and argues with furniture, on the other hand, is an image you can really pound into people's heads and get results.
It will be awfully hard to get cops and other government agencies to give up the goodies they get through the war on drugs.
It just so happens that prohibition of things people like to use does not work, with the War On Drugs being a prime example, along with prohibition of alcohol. The government's relation to tobacco (provide subsidies to those who grow it, impose regressive taxes on those who use it, sue the companies that sell it, stiff the lawyers on their fees) is almost comically dysfunctional.
Still, the perfect need not be the enemy of the good. For many years, absinthe was illegal in the U.S., while other alcoholic beverages were not. Very few organized crime types set up absinthe organizations. Quite possibly, we could legalize all drugs excpet, say, crystal meth. with no worse outcome than the ban on absinthe had. Further, there is no reason to treat a merchant who sells adulterated cocaine any better than one who sellls adulterated milk or penicillin.
Opiates are an issue though.
The chief drug law enforcement officer of the nation, Director of ONDCP, is required by law to take any measures necessary to prevent any Schedule I drug from being legalized. The ONDCP already has your tax dollars and mine to bankroll the political opposition to ending prohibition.
See 21 U.S.C. Section 1703(b)(12):
When it comes to drug prohibitionists, that last statement rings most true to me. Or to be more precise, it's just another culture war - using the power of the law to keep drugs so stigmatized that they never go mainstream and start influencing the national culture.
The worst part is, the prohibitionists actually have a point there. Without the influence of LSD, marijuana and other illegal drugs to introduce a cachet of rebelliousness and otherwise liven things up, the radical student movement of the late 1960s would probably have lost its appeal and flamed out by the mid-1970s (assuming it ever caught on in the first place), before it ever had a chance to poison the larger American culture, and by extension American politics. On the other hand, if those drugs were legal and generally available to the masses at that time, America may well have become an explicitly transnational socialist state by now.
to some extent this is unfortunately true. govt. agencies by their very nature seek to extend their power, influence, and budget. plus, i can state firsthand being a narcotics detective is FUN. the grants are good too, not to mention the seizures.
however... there are a pretty fair # of cops who think the war on mj (at a minimum) is ridiculous and could not care less about mj.
this is true even of some DEA agents i have spoken to.
my first cop boss (small town police chief) told me flat out - "whit, i could not care less if people are smoking marijuana in their homes."
many jurisdictions have de facto (if not de jure) decrim'd it ALREADY. seattle city council passed something making it a "low priority" for their cops, many jurisdiction treat possession of relatively small amounts as a civil infraction (minor fine), and i can tell you a LOT of cops when they catch people with a "minor amount of bud" have the people dump it on the street in front of them instead of citing them.
this is an incremental step in the right direction, and is occurring on the state and local level. the feds are still gung ho, schedule I all the way unfortunately.
but back to the main point, there are a lot of cops, and even many cop administrators who would like to do real police work, and leave the stoners alone
http://www.aclu.org/2004memberconf/live/july8.html
Also at that link, by the way, is video of speeches to the 2004 ACLU conference from Coleen Rowley, Kenneth Starr, Barry Lynn, Wayne LaPierre, Howard Dean, and Richard Clarke, among others....
What he's written up here ignores the main issues and is no act of courage (and involves little principle). What a shame.
Ditto. I know a fair number of recreational users of various things (almost all professionals with incomes well up the curve), some more exotic than others (and some of those are still legal), and the only thing that got people in trouble was meth. Sadly, the people I'm thinking of went to hell so quickly that nobody could really help. One suicide, one in jail.
You're absolutely right - lots of people are silly about the danger of drugs, but meth is the drug that mother should have warned you about. I'd rather be around alcoholics - they don't die as quickly, and are sometimes amusing.
also, i'd way rather be around stoners than alcoholics. the former are generally less violent, less pathetic, less dangerous, and less destructive.
Why was the 18th amendment of the Constitution required since it appears Congress can just ban anything it desires?
Absolutely they'd "like to", but if the city council slashes your budget while demanding more hours, something has got to give. Money ain't nothing.