The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the LPPa forum. 
Feel free to join the discussions.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bob Barr - I Was Wrong About The War On Drugs -- It's A Failure  (Read 1396 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
bdively
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



« on: June 10, 2008, 10:49:23 pm »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-barr/i-was-wrong-about-the-war_b_106249.html

Bob Barr - I Was Wrong About The War On Drugs -- It's A Failure

I'll admit it, just five years ago I was "Public Enemy Number 1" in the eyes of the Libertarian Party. In my 2002 congressional race for Georgia's Seventh District, the Libertarian Party ran scathing attack ads against my stand on Medical Marijuana.

Today, I am their presidential nominee and will represent libertarians at the top of the ticket on November 4th.

Huh?

That's right, 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.

One such solution was presented to me recently by a libertarian friend and supporter, Glenn Jacobs.

Glenn is a very unique guy with a very unique job. To say Glenn is a "big guy" or "intimidating" is an understatement. He gives people nightmares... literally.

Each week Glenn, who stands nearly seven feet tall, walks into a wrestling ring under the stage name "Kane" to beat other large men for sheer entertainment purposes.

Had I not pursued a career in politics -- and were about two feet taller -- I might have chosen a similar career path. Maybe...

In June of 2007, Glenn and many of his friends and co-workers in the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) were rocked by the news of the Chris Benoit tragedy that took place in my home state of Georgia.

It was speculated that Chris had murdered his family and committed suicide in a steroid or "roid" rage. While it is unclear how much of a role drugs played in Benoit's actions, and whether mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) may also have been a contributing factor, it was clear the WWE had some serious problems within its organization.

In the wake of the tragedy, the head of the WWE, Vince McMahon, and its other leaders looked internally to recognize these problems and address them. Although in the two years before Benoit's death, dozens of wrestlers had been suspended, gone to rehab, or been dismissed under the WWE's recently adopted "Wellness Program," the WWE strengthened its drug policy further, re-emphasizing that its policy wasn't merely a document, but the internal laws of the company that would be enforced.

Additionally, in response to speculation by brain trauma experts that Benoit may have been suffering from brain damage caused by years of blows to the head, WWE added a MTBI component to its Wellness Program.

McMahon didn't wait for Congress to pass a law or parade his wrestlers in front of congressional committee hearings; he took the lead and assumed responsibility over the health and welfare of the individuals who work for the WWE.

As part of the WWE Wellness Program, wrestlers go through regular drug testing and even cardiovascular testing. The latter identified a previously unknown heart condition for the wrestler "MVP" and he was treated for Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome. The government's War on Drugs wouldn't have done that.

Sadly, the long standing War on Drugs also did not save the life of Chris Benoit and his family. The truth is, only Chris could have saved himself through personal responsibility. However, the efforts of Vince McMahon are making progress in preventing other tragedies and harm.

The WWE is taking responsibility for its talent and giving its participants the resources that they need, through rehabilitation, testing and even anonymous help lines, to deal with any possible problems.

While there may be some employees of the organization who may not like random drug tests or being thrown on a treadmill for an EKG, they have the choice of finding a new employer.

That's the beauty of this libertarian solution. It does not take government intervention or our tax dollars. It also does not force anyone to do anything, as it only requires voluntary action and decisions.

While I applaud the WWE for taking on this responsibility with a libertarian solution, don't bother looking for me at an upcoming cage match on Friday Night Smackdown. I don't want to be responsible for hurting any of those little guys.
Logged

What say you?
DCee
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 9



WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2008, 11:45:50 pm »

It's a strange world we live in where the WWE takes the lead.
Logged
caomhin10p
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 110


« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2008, 12:15:33 am »

I don't know about a complete failure.   I'll reiterate my position in that small amounts of possession should be decriminalized.  I personally do not use any drugs, just have some beer here and there.  I have had a few friends with drug problems but I think that medical and recreational marijuana is a far different circumstance than cocaine and heroin, which are much more dangerous.  Yes, rehabilitation is a great method to help people, but to make a jump from legalizing marijuana in certain aspects to legalizing opiates and other substances I simply can't support.  It's completely and totally necessary to help out those in need and the best way to do that is through private charity and reaching out to friends in danger and help them on a personal level.  It's a bit different to legally allow a person to use heroin and the like knowing the terrible effects both physically and mentally when certain drugs lead to an irreversible life time addiction.  Prevention is the key for these types of drugs.  Can the war on drugs be revamped and corrected?  Absolutely.  In its current state it is not optimum, but we to simply stop enforcing all drug laws is not a good idea.
Logged
Samantha1965
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 108

Samantha_leigh1965
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2008, 06:56:32 am »

I don't know about a complete failure. 

How many people do you know who would do drugs if they were legal who are not doing them now? Can you quantify in any way how many people have been helped by the "war on drugs"? If we are only getting 30% interdiction at our boarder for 13 billion dollars; how much are you willing to spend in dollars and personal liberty to get 100% success?

 
  Yes, rehabilitation is a great method to help people, but to make a jump from legalizing marijuana in certain aspects to legalizing opiates and other substances I simply can't support.  It's completely and totally necessary to help out those in need and the best way to do that is through private charity and reaching out to friends in danger and help them on a personal level.  It's a bit different to legally allow a person to use heroin and the like knowing the terrible effects both physically and mentally when certain drugs lead to an irreversible life time addiction.  Prevention is the key for these types of drugs.  Can the war on drugs be revamped and corrected?  Absolutely.  In its current state it is not optimum, but we to simply stop enforcing all drug laws is not a good idea.

Cao,

You really need to step back and think about it all. My outlook was similar to yours only a week ago. This election cycle though has made me consider things. Bob Barr's conversion to libertarian is believable, because I'm having my own. If we stop the war on drugs what do you think will happen?

How many people with a drug problem do not seek help because they fear legal consequences? How many people have a drug problem, get caught, go to jail, get out, still have a drug problem and now are involved with other illegal activities? Going to jail clearly is not a deterrent to doing drugs or selling them. For every street dealer you put in jail there are ten people applying for his job.

 You said,"Prevention is the key for these types of drugs."; when you say prevention I believe you mean interdiction, making it 100% unavailable. Inside correctional facilities (jails, prisons) all across the nation you will find users and dealers. In an environment that we have absolute control over; "cruel and unusual punishment" being our only restrictions, we can not stop drugs. Bribes and corruption and intimidation (I may be in jail but my friends know where you live) of course are among the reasons drugs are on sale in prisons. These same things happen to Law enforcement all across our fair land.

The "War on drugs" just increases the cost of doing business it does not prevent the business from continuing on. As long as there are paying customers there will be retailers and wholesalers, manufacturers and importers. The war on drugs has yet to come up with a tactic to deal with eliminating the customer. With marijuana  it has given up on dealing with the user.

Education I would think is the key to prevention. Getting the customer to decide to not be a customer in the first place. A certain number of people will not be persuaded, probably a similar number that we already  have using. For those people and their families rehabilitation would work better than incarceration.

Tell me where I'm wrong Caomhin?

Peace and Love,
Samantha
Logged
JohnKOTR
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2008, 07:34:11 am »

The war on drugs has only ever raised prices and increased the violence in pursuit of control of drug trade. Putting people in prison for using drugs is like locking up pedophile in a pre-school. They have just as much access to drugs inside as they do outside, if not more. Often criminals going in for modest use of marijuana or cocaine come out using heroin or morphine. Using force and intimidation to stop people from using drugs has NEVER worked. The only thing that ever has is education. Anti-drug commercials, education in schools, and efforts by parents are the only successful measures ever taken. None too surprising, these methods require little or no government intervention.

End the war on drugs and stop eliminating the competition for drug dealers with friends in the U.S. government.
Logged
klapton
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2008, 09:02:39 am »

Education and prevention are priority #1 in dealing with vice. 

It's important that parents and kids are told the TRUTH about different drugs and their effects.  When I stress truth, I also mean that misinformation (stuff like "reefer madness") UNDERMINES efforts to warn about real dangers.  Essentially, it's "crying wolf".  When kids are told lies about pot, then try it, and nothing bad happens, they think they were also lied to about cocaine and heroin.  If they even TRY those, there is a chance that they could get hooked, and their whole life could be ruined.

#2.  Medical / Psychological treatment is how you help someone with an addiction, not incarceration.  The same goes for other addictive vices that are currently legal, like gambling and alchohol.

#3.  As others have also pointed out, prohibition creates black markets for products, which CREATES organized, violent crime.  If you want to put the crips or the bloods out of business, let them try to compete with Starbucks, lol.  They'll get wtfpwned.
Logged
jgparks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


Email
« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2008, 11:02:33 am »

The problem is, given the war on tobacco, the legalization of drugs probably won't happen.  I drink the occasional adult beverage now and then, but don't do drugs.  I don't smoke either, but believe that smokers, and businesses, have rights.  Medical marijuana could be a first step towards expanding personal liberties, but the legalization of drugs is still a long way off.

I always try the argument that if tobacco is so bad, why doesn’t the government just ban it?  After all drugs are illegal for public health and safety?

Maybe the government is addicted to the revenue that tobacco provides. 


Logged
Samantha1965
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 108

Samantha_leigh1965
« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2008, 04:27:55 pm »

Education and prevention are priority #1 in dealing with vice. 


People seem to have the knee jerk reaction that if it is legal everyone will want to do it and society goes down hill. I would like to think that my children will grow up to not choose it, but just can't see them saying, "Gee mom it might screw up my life, but it's legal so I'm going to use it."  I don't think I have any friends who are just waiting for it to be legal so that they could try it.

I can see having regulations like alcohol about what you do in public. Contact high is real with marijuana. I could see having drug dens where you take your drug and hang out till you come down. People on acid or peyote certainly have enough disconnect with reality to be a danger to others. If it's legal though you can then hold the dealer responsible, which on a practical level you can not now. I'm not aware that anyone has pressed a wrongful death suit against a supplier.

Children of drug users is probably the biggest area of concern to me that I'm not sure how to address.

Regards,
Samantha
Logged
JohnKOTR
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2008, 04:42:49 pm »

Children of drug users go one of two ways. They either see their parents as drug-using a-holes and turn into drug-using a-holes themselves or they are repulsed by their parents into not doing drugs. The legality of drug use has nothing to do with it, in my opinion.
Logged
Samantha1965
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 108

Samantha_leigh1965
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2008, 05:57:38 pm »

John,

Do you have any idea how cold and heartless that sounds. So crack babies are fine with you, this is not a form of Abuse? Kids getting contact highs from pot smoking parents is merely a suck's to be you situation? Small children taking their parents drugs that are left laying around the house is just ducky?

Peace and Love,
Samantha
Logged
djahn
Administrator
Newbie
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2008, 06:06:04 pm »

The war on drugs has never worked.  The reality is that anyone who wants drugs, has no trouble finding them.  You have to wonder, who are we kidding?

Another interesting point of view si that the drug dealers aren't the only ones making a living off of the war on drugs.  A good portion of the law enforcement community is as well.  It seems to me that the drug dealers and the law enforcement types have a stake in continuing the war on drugs.

The only losers in all of this insanity is the users and the people who care for them.

David Jahn
Logged

David Jahn
djahn
Administrator
Newbie
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2008, 06:16:14 pm »

John,

Do you have any idea how cold and heartless that sounds. So crack babies are fine with you, this is not a form of Abuse? Kids getting contact highs from pot smoking parents is merely a suck's to be you situation? Small children taking their parents drugs that are left laying around the house is just ducky?

Peace and Love,
Samantha

Samantha,

I think John was just talking about how children who are exposed to drug abusing parents generally react and mature.  Some grow to hate drugs while others grow into abusers as well.

You bring up some important points though.  Pregnant women do have a duty to their young.  Most women I know give up alcohol and tobacco while pregnant.  Surely, any decent woman would give up street drugs.  Most parents are concerned about exposing children to tobacco smoke these days, surely pot smoke should be of greater concern. And, leaving drugs around where children can find them is clearly a danger.

I think all of these things should be actionable.  What action is appropriate and yields the best results is another area of discussion.  I don't believe prisons are the best solutions for some problems.

David Jahn
Logged

David Jahn
klapton
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2008, 07:20:03 pm »

I agree that John's reply was meant to be very broad and general:  that kids of dope users either pick up their parents' bad habits, or they realize how horrible it is, and want nothing to do with it.

I've noticed this to be true of kids of smokers.  The kids either take up smoking, or they REALLY hate it.
Logged
bdively
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2008, 10:35:18 pm »

I really like the position that employers should decide to have drug screening, or not.  Same with cigarettes or over-weight people, especially if they are footing the bill for heath care.  (Show me an over-weight Amish kid)

If people HAD to be more responsible for their actions, thus health, and it hit their wallets then we wouldn't be a in the trouble we are.  Pot is so common now that kids think its a joke.  I think all drugs are bad, but the war on drugs is much worse.   
Logged

What say you?
DCee
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 9



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 12, 2008, 04:59:12 am »

I believe that education is the best prevention.  My Fiance still believes to this day (32 years old) that smoking one joint is like smoking a whole pack of cigarettes.  Granted, it may be misinformation but she has never tried any illegal drug in her whole life because she learned in school that they were bad.

I think legalization of drugs would do more good than bad. I don't think many more people would start drugs but it would get rid of most of the violence.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com