Tea Party and the Drug War

In case you missed this article in the latest edition of The National Review here it is.

Tea Party and the Drug War

June 7, 2010 4:00 A.M.

If the tea-party believes in its principles, it must choose the libertarian path on drug prohibition.

Voter dissatisfaction with Republicans and Democrats is at historic levels, and the tea-party movement is hoping to play kingmaker in the November elections. The country’s current breed of discontent is ideal for the tea parties, because economic concerns are foremost, allowing the movement to sidestep the divisions between its libertarian and conservative wings.

As the elections near, however, voters will want to know where the party stands not just on the economy but on social issues. A perfect illustration is drug policy, where conservatives advocate continued prohibition but libertarians argue for legalization. Which way should the tea party lean when this issue arises?

If the party is true to its principles — fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets — it must side with the libertarians.

Fiscal responsibility means limiting government expenditures to programs that can be convincingly said to generate benefits in excess of their costs. This does not rule out programs with large expenditures, or ones whose benefits are difficult to quantify; national defense is guilty on both counts, yet few believe that substantial military expenditure is necessarily irresponsible.

Any significant expenditure, however, should come with a credible claim that it produces a benefit large enough to outweigh both the expenditure itself and any ancillary costs. From this perspective, drug prohibition is not remotely consistent with fiscal responsibility. This policy costs the public purse around $70 billion per year, according to my estimates, yet no evidence suggests that prohibition reduces drug use to a significant degree.

Read the rest

I did note that at a Tea Party gathering in Tuscaloosa a month or so ago one person had a nice sign that simply stated the issue in a nutshell...

DRUG WAR = BIG GOVERNMENT

Any questions?

Is the Drug War Almost Over?

Secretary of State Clinton says US Also to Blame for Mexican Drug Violence

By Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers – 1 hr 7 mins ago

MEXICO CITY — The United States is at least as responsible as Mexico for the violent drug wars that are roiling its southern neighbor because of an insatiable U.S. market for narcotics, the failure to stop weapons smuggling southward and a three-decade "war" on drugs that "has not worked," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday.

"Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians," Clinton said.

"How could anyone conclude any differently? . . . I feel very strongly we have co-responsibility," she said.

Clinton's blunt remarks as she flew to Mexico were the clearest by any senior U.S. official in recent memory that American habits and government policies have stoked the drug trade and a spreading epidemic of criminal violence in northern Mexico .

Stepping beyond strictly foreign-policy issues, the secretary of state hinted at major changes to come in the Obama administration's domestic drug-control strategy, with more emphasis on reducing demand and on treatment programs for drug abusers.

"It's not working," she said of the current approach.

"We have certainly been pursuing these strategies for . . . a long time. I remember Mrs. Reagan's 'just say no,' " Clinton said, referring to former first lady Nancy Reagan's exhortation to young people to refuse drugs. "It's been very difficult."

I've only heard very few politicians ever utter such truthful words. The American led 'War on Drugs' has destabilized entire nations (that's what it was intended to do)and Mexico is on the verge of being a failed state because of it. Despite US drug laws we consume more illicit drugs than any other developed nation on earth. Tougher laws do not translate into demand reduction. Locking millions of us in prison for using drugs does not translate to reduced demand either.

I hate to sound too hopeful here but, it looks as if major, positive policy changes with regard to the drug war are headed our way. They are long, long over due. I encourage everyone to go and vote in the latest round of questions at the Open for Questions website. Many of the current questions leading the categories are related to the failed drug war and the need to legalize marijuana to end the Mexican drug violence, raise revenue for the economy and create jobs for the millions of Americans who now find themselves without one.

Drug War Double Standard

Over the course of the last few weeks there have been three letters printed in the Montgomery Advertiser regarding medical marijuana.

State should join marijuana list (my letter)

Medical Purpose Well Justified (Sarah Wires)

Legalization clearly unhealthy (Frank Winkler)

In responses posted to each letter on the Montgomery Advertiser site 'renegade6', a poster, calls for the execution of terminally ill patients, other medical users and recreational users of marijuana.

What makes this fascinating is that renegade6 claims in the posts on the last letter that he is a police officer. I don't believe that to be true, although his attitude fits. If he is a cop then his call for execution of anyone for using marijuana is horrifying.

First, its bullshit that a cop can call for the outright execution of a citizen for ingesting a benign plant. If we ingesters of said plant were to call for the execution of drug cops then we would all be arrested and probably the recipient of a serious beating at the hands of police. But, this guy can call for the execution of peaceful citizens and nothing happens to him. If this is a real war then how come only one side (government aggressor) is allowed to fight and the other side (peaceful pot smokers) is criminalized if they fight back? Nay...criminalized for even thinking (conspiracy) of fighting back?

Second, you can't help but wonder, if this guy is a real cop, then how many people has he shot or brutalized over marijuana in his career? The fact that he has a badge and a gun and has been sanctioned by the government would give him countless opportunities to violate the rights of citizens. You know cops police themselves so any shooting was 'justified' as accidental, or 'suspect was threatening my safety' or the ever present and entirely over-used 'suspect tried to run over me with his car' explanations. All after an 'intense and unbiased investigation', of course. [/sarcasm]

Can it really be a war if only one side is allowed to do the shooting?

EDIT: A Google search reveals that Frank Winkler (letter author) is affiliated with SAYNO Inc. Here is the link. His name appears near the bottom of the page.


http://www.mh.alabama.gov/downloads/SA/SASDPreventionDirectory.pdf

I haven't found a link for the organization SAYNO Inc. In fact, I've never heard of them before today.

Chances are Mr. Winkler gets federal funding from the government and clearly has a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal. He'd be out of work if we ended prohibition. Interesting that he didn't put his organization affiliation on this letter.