I guess I’m one of the few, but I support the war on drugs. A recovering drunk and addict with many years of continuous sobriety (by the Grace of God), I believe many drunks and addicts only realize who and what they’ve become when hitting bottom in a county jail or prison cell, which isn’t a first step, but is a beginning. Those who are not yet addicts are also given a wake-up call, and incarceration and other legal penalties might–might–pull them back from the brink. Even more importantly from a societal standpoint, such people aren’t hurting others while doing time. There are no guarantees on anything, of course, but standing in shackles in front of a judge certainly clarifies one’s thinking.

troyriser_gopftw on November 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM

sayabule2, you wrote, ‘I am a true (i.e., consistent) conservative and this issue is a clear loser for the Republican party.’ First, I am leery of anyone claiming to be a ‘true’ conservative since it presupposes you and other self-proclaimed ‘true’ conservatives are the somehow arbiters of philosophical and ideological purity. Libertarians like calling themselves ‘true conservatives’, so you’re probably one of them. By the way, how did Ed Clark work out for you guys back in the day? Not so well, huh? Further, you liken the illegality of street drugs to alcohol prohibition, which is generally agreed to have been a failed experiment. Thus, by association, you are equating alcohol with, say, methamphetamines, heroin, and cocaine, which is falsely analogous, as you probably know, so you’re being deliberately disingenuous, as well. Regarding your central point, this is not so much an issue for the GOP as it is a relative non-issue at the national level except insofar as the huge quantities of drugs illegally imported and the activities and influence of the criminal organizations importing and distributing the stuff. Me, I take a federalist view of the matter. You feel strongly about it? Keep voting for and supporting legislators such as Martin who possibly/probably believe as you do. Make your state, whatever it is, the pilot for the unbounded liberty you advocate. Oh, wait, you can’t. Libertarians seem to have a problem electing candidates to dogcatcher, much less president. Why is that? Could it be because the Libertarian habit of applying the laissez-faire approach to virtually every issue, economic or moral, seems rigidly doctrinaire and irrational at its core? Yes, it could.

troyriser_gopftw on November 16, 2008 at 12:40 AM

sayabule1, I chuckled inwardly when I saw the ‘puritanical’ tag, as I imagine all recovering drunks and addicts do when the tag is applied to them. Your argument against the illegality of drugs, those referred to as ‘controlled substances’, is essentially utilitarian, a line of argument we owe to the likes of Bentham and Mills. In my view, what they miss and what you miss is this: all successful laws have as their basis a moral principle. Moral principles may be inherent to human nature or learned, I don’t know, but these principles have been the guide for princes and parliaments for thousands of years. The moral principle at work in regards to the illegality of certain, often very powerful drugs is that these drugs kill people, drive them mad, destroy productivity and families, and ultimately undermine the societies receptive to their use. Further, The effects would be no different if the most now-illegal drugs were legal or not. Have you ever met a casual, social, purely recreational crack or heroin user? Me neither, and I once ran in circles where such usage was commonplace and accepted. Do I believe the war on drugs could be waged more effectively? Of course, but if you’re talking effectiveness, you’re talking differences in strategy and not in objective. Thing is, we keep trying–and not just from a law enforcement angle. We find our way through the fog of this particular war until the war is won. That’s my take on things, anyway.

troyriser_gopftw on November 16, 2008 at 4:51 PM

Scotta, victimless? Contrary to this current trend of applying the fuzzy bunny word ‘empowerment’ whenever actresses playing hookers are interviewed about their role, most prostitutes lead miserable, unhappy, disease- and drug-ridden lives, where sex–that most intimate and emotionally bonding of human experiences–is reduced to services rendered for cash, most of which is taken from them by drug dealers, pimps, madams and the like–which remains true even if prostitution is legalized nationally. So much for empowerment. Further, telling our sons and daughters trading sex for money is honorable and right is the fastest way I know to make moot the cultural and societal benefits of monogamous, romantic love. And drugs? I can only speak for myself, but I believe legalization of marijuana would be tantamount to societal approval of its use, with all that implies. Again: if you want legalization of its use, elect enough representatives to change the law. You can attempt to sway opinion to bring this about, which is what you are doing, but I find most pro-marijuana arguments unconvincing, with the exception of medicinal use. If the drug has medical applications, then it should be used for those medical applications, just as opiates are used. Of course, myself and others who believe as I do will be doing the same to counter your goal, but that’s how it’s done here. Further, while it may be true not all marijuana users become hardcore drug addicts, it is irrefutable the vast majority of hardcore drug addicts start with marijuana and take it from there. And yes, marijuana is addictive. Go to an open NA meeting sometime as an observer and listener. Observe and listen.

troyriser_gopftw on November 16, 2008 at 11:04 PM

scotta, I’m not parsing your commentary looking for implicit queries. I’m attempting to get at the core of your argument and address central issues. You advocate legalization of what you call victimless crimes, and I’m arguing neither prostitution nor illegal drug use–and drug sales–are victimless at all; that society would be badly served by the universal legalization of prostitution and drug use. For another, of course I think johns should go to jail, obviously, naturally. Even more, their names should be prominently posted in the police blotter section of their local newspapers. And your ‘more of you so you get your way’ remark is rather odd, given that’s how representative democracies work. btw, want to try and take a less patronizing tone? I don’t profess to be an authority on a lot of things, but sure as hell know what I’m talking about when it comes to drug and alcohol abuse. You might say it’s a matter to which I’ve given a great deal of thought and energy.

troyriser_gopftw on November 16, 2008 at 11:37 PM

Listen, drug legalization advocates: you’ll get nowhere if you antagonize the daylights out of people you’re presumably attempting to persuade. The onus is on you, not me, one who opposes your stance. Historically, drugs have destroyed whole societies, devastated countless lives and families, brought about large-scale lawlessness and violence. Not one of the drugs you want to legalize contributes anything whatsoever to the furtherance of our people’s safety and well-being. The medicinal uses of many of these drugs are negligible–and in the case of some, such as methamphetimines, completely nonexistent. You want to get high without fearing arrest? Too bad. Your discomfort is simply not a consideration when the welfare of the polis is at stake. Hard to imagine, I know, since illicit drug users are, by and large, a selfish, self-centered pack of worthless pleasure-seekers, but there it is.

troyriser_gopftw on November 17, 2008 at 10:00 AM

Oh, yeah, right: keep equating those opposed to your position as the Taliban. That’ll work. At the risk of belaboring the point, re-read my responses. Not once did I invoke a religious justification for any of my arguments against the legalization of now-illegal drugs. And I notice, too, you keep invoking Sarah Palin as some kind of icon of open-minded leniency where drug laws–in her case, Alaska’s marijuana laws–are concerned. I don’t know her views on drug legalization one way or the other. I do know Alaska had lax drug laws prior to her assuming the governorship of that state, so she inherited that ship; she didn’t build it. I also know prominent conservative thinkers such as the late William F. Buckley support drug legalization. I can respect their position while opposing it. I cannot, however, respect yours, which can be reduced to ‘Hey, it’s victimless, man’, which belies all studies, all data, all historical experience. So far, you and your like-minded pals have thrown up any number of straw men, employed reductio ad absurdum fallacies and ad hominem attacks. News, lightweight: you can only win an argument if your arguments are valid, and you sure as hell aren’t winning this one.

troyriser_gopftw on November 17, 2008 at 10:39 AM

Yet another ad hominem attack right after I called you on it? You are aware attacking me personally in lieu of addressing the argument(s) I make is a fallacy, right? You do know that, right? You wrote, ‘…Just because you had a hard time controlling yourself from the “evils” of drugs/alcohol does not mean that everyone else should have to sacrifice their liberties for your lack of self-control.’ Look, sport, I don’t have anything against people who drink socially and responsibly, nor do I possess some puritannical urge to stamp out good times wherever I see them. I’ve presented my arguments against illicit drug legalization with as much clarity as I can muster. You claim making drugs illegal is an infringement on your individual liberty. I claim you’re wrong, largely on the grounds that any workable system of government must establish boundaries on behaviors for the well-being and continuation of the polis; that is, the community, state, and country, the obligation to which transcends the desire of any given member of that community buy these drugs or sell these drugs or make these drugs or put these drugs into his or her body. I have, I think, presented a substantiative case against drug legalization on those grounds. Further, I am not appealing to false authority when I mention my own recovery. I am no scientist or counselor or member of law enforcement. I am simply offering a reason why I personally feel so strongly about the drug legalization issue. Here’s a snapshot of that experience: I had a close friend burn to death in a meth lab explosion many years ago. The nearest neighbor was nearly a mile away, and could hear my friend’s agonized screams, which went on for a long time but stopped before help could arrive. That’s what I think about when I think about drugs. So for me, this isn’t some abstraction. The problem is concrete, real, and immediate, and you and yours are not helping.

troyriser_gopftw on November 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM