Help Me Reach 12 on the Manly Scale of Absolute Gender

If you like the patriotic work we're doing, please consider donating a few dollars. We could use it. (if asked for my email, use "gen.jc.christian@gmail.com.")
Thanks!

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Politicians on Drugs: Explaining the Lack of Seriousness in D.C.


Politicians on Drugs: Explaining the Lack of Seriousness in D.C.
Image © Austin Cline
Click for full-sized Image

The question of decriminalizing some or all illegal narcotics, to a lesser or greater extent, then regulating and taxing the ensuing trade is a serious matter. There are fair arguments on all sides (because there is range of how far we could go with this, there is arguably more than just one "side") of the debate, but it cannot be dismissed as a pointless, irrelevant, or trivial matter. Yet that's precisely what Barack Obama did at a recent town hall meeting where, based on the reaction, he was surrounded by like-minded apologists for the current structures of power and liberty. Way to break outside the beltway and take it to the people, Mr. President.

Let's run quickly through some of the reasons why it's reasonable to regard the current "war on drugs" as causing more trouble than it solves. Both the violence and corruption associated with illegal drugs are more directly connected to the prohibition of drugs than to the use of drugs. The failure of drug laws to eliminate drug use has encouraged politicians to pass ever more draconian anti-drug laws, thus leading both to unnecessary suffering through harsh sentences for non-violent offenses and a decline in respect for the law when people see police and courts consumed with these cases.

Prohibition also undermines basic constitutional liberties by encouraging police to circumvent laws regulating search and seizures. No-knock warrants combined with paying for tips has led to innumerable raids on the homes of innocent people, including quite a few deaths at the hands of some over-zealous police who no longer seem to care very much about "protecting" and "serving" the public. Prohibition is a nightmare for national security, enriching those who already have a grudge against America and fueling resentment in others who are harmed by American efforts to suppress drug production.

Prohibition damages public health because there is so much resistance to the very idea that any illegal drugs might have any benefits — the prohibition mindset allows for only one response to drugs, no matter who might get harmed in the process. Prohibition is just as bad for the budget, consuming huge amounts of government resources, damaging the productivity of people caught up in the prohibition web, and excluding entire sectors as possible sources of revenue.

These reasons may not be enough to convince someone to support ending prohibition, but they are more than enough to cast doubt on prohibition and deserve stronger arguments in response. To put it another way, they are serious and substantive enough to earn something equally serious and substantive in return.

To be fair, it must be acknowledged that Obama was asked about a policy which is still viewed with suspicion and even fear by so many people in America. The case against prohibition may deserve a serious and substantive response, but that's hard to do when so many people's have been taught to react to drugs in a one-dimensional way: just say no. Opponents of prohibition thus have two hurdles: before they can convince people of their arguments, they must also convince people that any arguments should be considered at all.

Support for varying degrees of decriminalization and/or legalization has grown in recent years, but it's still a relative minority position with fierce opposition. That, however, is an argument for Obama to not wholeheartedly endorsing the idea — it's not an argument to dismiss it as a joke. Remember, decriminalization and legalization aren't just about eliminating one isolated restriction on people's liberty. It's not just about allowing people to get high as legally as they get drunk, though that's what so many tend to think about.

The question Barack Obama was asked ties into medical questions, sustainable farming and manufacturing (with hemp), new sources of tax revenues, and more. His dismissive and even flippant response suggests that he's unaware of all this; a serious response, even in the negative, would have indicated that he understands the complexity of the matter and simply arrived at a different conclusion. Something along the lines of "I understand why people argue for this idea and they make some good points, but I just don't agree with their conclusions" would have been a reasonable, respectful response. It would have avoided scaring apologists for the failed war on drugs while signaling to supporters of legalization that they should keep working on their arguments to make a better case. So why didn't he do that?

Sadly, that's a question which a lot of progressives have been asking on a lot of issues. Barack Obama has been touted as a progressive president, but it's hard to find examples which support such a label. Indeed, the Congressional Progressive Caucus — the largest ideological group among Congressional Democrats — is the only major faction which Barack Obama has not met with. Obama has managed to find time to meet with conservative and moderate Democrats, all of whom have been working against progressive policies, but not with the more reliable supporters of progressive policies.

Yes, I know it's necessary to reach out to less reliable supporters in order to make a political agenda work, but that doesn't require ignoring or taking for granted your regular supporters. It's not a progressive value — or even smart politics — to present yourself as a progressive who somehow keeps ignoring other progressives. This, combined with Harry Reid whining that liberal Democrats shouldn't pressure moderate Democrats to stop standing in the way of progressive legislation, leaves the distinct impression that Democratic leaders across the board are consistently looking for ways to ditch progressivism in favor of a more conservative agenda.


11 comments:

  1. The Democratic Party is a party of the ruling class, not the ruled class. What a surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The other thought is that certain portions of the country (i.e., people who watch Glenn Beck, et al.) would spontaneously combust if Obama even suggested legalizing marijuana.

    I'd be okay with that, but after they put out the fires, they would then probably start the civil war they've been talking about, for real.

    (I think if we allow alcohol, we're insane not to allow weed. After all, when was the last time you heard about someone smoking too much weed and beating their kids?)

    ReplyDelete
  3. After all, when was the last time you heard about someone smoking too much weed and beating their kids?

    I heard one guy smoked too much weed and then beat his kids at Frisbee Golf. Does that count? I also heard about another parent who smoked too much weed and proceeded to beat his kids to the last pint of Ben & Jerry's...

    As for the War on Drugs: when are we going to invade Pfizer?

    ++++

    ReplyDelete
  4. I get the impression that we have reached, or are maybe about to reach, a point in this nation where we can have a serious dialogue about "the war on drugs". It was disappointing to hear the POTUS' dismissal.

    My greatest concerns with legalization are three:

    1) How to decide which drugs (if not all) to legalize, and

    2) How do we deal with the increase in drug-related health issues as a result of increased drug use following legalization, and

    3) What happens with the existing criminal networks that are currently involved in drug trafficking and sales? What do they turn their attention to next?

    Still, it seems that what we're doing now is not working. Most of the commonly cited negative effects of illegal drugs are actually effects of drug prohibition

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, one more thing in response to Personal Failure's comment. There's something I say, and have asked fellow cops over the years--when was the last time you got in a fight with an enraged pothead? When was the last time you saw an out of control pothead overturn the family dinner table and throw the Christmas tree through the front window? I'll bet never.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's herbs vs. drugs. Eccentric vs. psychotic, yada yada. We have more to fear from vikodun jacked Fats Limbaugh than say Tommy Chong. Now that big pharma is the biggest drug cartel in the illegal drug world, don't look for any reform. Prohibition was the best money the liquor industry ever made.
    Excuse my cynicism, but since when has anyone in DC been sensitive to citizens?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Comrade Clineskibergsteindorf:

    You and that fuckin' troublemaker Webb. He wants to quit providin' Incarcertation, Inc. with product and you wanta help him by making, what, 30-40% of their current population "catch and release"? You fuckin' commies don't get that we can't have free enterprise if freedom is free.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Look here Cline -- either you're against the dope fiends, or you're with them. And I think we know which side you're on, boy.

    Barack Obama cannot say he's for legalising the killer weed because he is known to have smoked it. No, I'm not talking about cigarettes. I mean the illegal killer weed. How many people have died because of its malign effects? Not tobacco! Marijuana!

    Since we've never had a president who smoked Mary Jane, at least not since the evil Clinton, then OF COURSE Obama can't suggest legalising it. Because Rush and other patriots would all be laughing that Obama is just doing that so he could toke up in the Oval Office. And fear of the laughter of Republicans is the most powerful force in the Democrat Party.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "And fear of the laughter of Republicans is the most powerful force in the Democrat Party."

    That's why they laugh at us so much....

    Actually, we always had the impression that Obama was a centrist. Never quite understood why people thought he was to the left of center. But we needed a charismatic leader at this point....

    ReplyDelete
  10. Maybe there is a difference between being on the left of McCain and being on the left.

    ReplyDelete

We'll try dumping haloscan and see how it works.