There has been much ado about losses the Republican Party is expected to
take this upcoming election cycle. There is one angle which the GOP could
take with which they’d be likely to continue to control both houses of
congress: Changing their position on the drug war. It seems unlikely that
the GOP would lose many votes over this issue, but they’d gain a lot of
independent, libertarian, and even Democratic support.
John Stossel is a favorite of right-wingers who still believe the
Republican Party is the more conservative of the two major parties. He
just posted an article at conservative TownHall.com renouncing his former
views on the drug war. From the article:
"Getting high can be bad. Putting people in prison for it is worse. And
doing the latter doesn’t stop the former.
I was once among the majority who believe that drug use must be
illegal. But then I noticed that when vice laws conflict with the law
of supply and demand, the conflict is ugly, and the law of supply and
demand generally wins.
The drug war costs taxpayers about $40 billion. 'Up to three quarters
of our budget can somehow be traced back to fighting this war on
drugs,' said Jerry Oliver, then chief of police in Detroit, told me.
Yet the drugs are as available as ever."
While I doubt I could ever be a Republican again (no matter how
libertarian their positions might become, they’ve repeatedly violated my
trust), comments about the Stossel article indicate that a lot of
Republicans don’t agree with the war on drug users. Here’s a sampling:
"I think you don’t go far enough in your article. If we decriminalise
drugs, we can divert a mere portion of the $40 billion into
rehabilitation of drug dependant users and also into education of its
consequences.
Two important comments I feel should always be added into the killing
the war on drugs and making them legal. They are: employers do not
have to hire you if you choose to use these drugs, and we must also do
away with any social programs that entail addicts or recovering
addicts to government money. With the addition of these two items you
have a completely fool proof method of helping people understand why
they should or should not do them and what happens when they do.
Thanks to Mr. Stossel for a well reasoned piece. I dislike addictive
drugs (incl. alcohol and nicotine) as much as anyone, but harsh
penalties only compound the problem.
John, I couldn’t agree with you more. I’ve been saying this for years.
Nobody wants a bunch of 'stoners' in our country, yet despite our best
efforts we still have them; and always will.
I agree. Life sentences in Michigan for distribution sure didn’t work.
Teaching kids about drugs (DARE program) has a negligible to negative
effect on drug use, but it makes parents, teachers, and politicians
feel better."
There are also these sorts of folks in the conservative movement:
"I just think that the argument is the same. If its legal, it must be
A-OK.
the solution to the problem is the death penalty for possession for
distribution, involuntary sterilization for repated recreational and
habitiual drug use, and wholesale agricultural destruction of the
crops. Recreational drug users should be disqualified from any and all
governmental assistance and drug use by parents should result in the
permanent relocation of the dependent children
Surrendering a war because the tactics are not working is
irresponsible. Clearly the problem is that the country is lax on the
deterrent. Make the deterrent high enough and it can absolutely be
controlled.
Offer treatment for first-time convicted users, and give the death
penalty for repeat offenders. For those dealers who peddle death to
our kids and adults the punishment could be enhanced. Give treatment
and a one year prison sentence to small time dealers who plea bargain
by giving up the name of their supplier. Repeat offenders and those up
the supply chain should be sentenced to death."
After considering that most Republicans in Congress favor the continued
death and suffering of medical marijuana patients coupled to these calls
for the death penalty for recreational use, I retract my earlier
statement. There is no hope for the GOP. With extremist views (and they
call us extremists?) such as these, there can be no hope for the
Republican Party. I say we flush the GOP down the toilet so they may
wallow in their own political excrement.
.
|
