Posted on 02/25/2006 12:15:06 PM PST by new yorker 77
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The move to legalize drugs in the United States has an unlikely ally.
William F. Buckley, editor of the conservative magazine National Review, believes with illegal drugs so readily available, the war against them has been lost. (170K AIFF sound or 170K WAV sound) Buckley would legalize marijuana immediately, then study how far to go legalizing other drugs.
Supporters claim drug legalization will ease burdens on prisons and shift billions of dollars from law enforcement to treatment and anti-drug education. Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke would go a step further: putting government in charge of distributing drugs to addicts.
"I'm interested in bringing peace on the street ... (but) ... the war on drugs is simply bringing more killing rather than less killing. I'd like to take the profit out of distributing drugs at the street level."
An idea whose time has not come In Washington, both the Clinton administration and Congress believe drug legalization would send the wrong message.
"The president thinks it's time for an offensive in the war on drugs and not a time for surrender," said White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry.
What's really needed is "real tough law enforcement and a zero tolerance type of attitude," Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Florida, said. The National Review is out of touch with reality, according to Thomas Constantine, director of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
"The number one deterrent from people starting to use drugs, believe it or not, is the fear of the sanction of the law." And drug researcher Eric Wish believes legalization would only serve to create "a large number of new users. (94K AIFF sound or 94K WAV sound)
With drug policy a possible issue this election year, few politicians are likely to heed the call of the National Review. As-one-law-enforcement-official-put-it:-"The-idea-of-legalization-is-goofy. It'll-never-happen."
(Excerpt) Read more at cgi.cnn.com ...
I hope WFBjr has reduced his marijuana intake since 1996.
Buckley is also a fan of "compulsory volunteerism." There isn't a conservative going, no matter how strong his principles, who doesn't have some pet leftist project.
So why didn't you post it on the thread you are referring too??
It's worth posting it by itself for all freepers to read.
It is a real story at CNN.com from January 1996.
Been posted numerous times over the years. You do a disservice to the original thread by not posting it there.
It is a real story at CNN.com from January 1996.
CNN has never had a real story.
Thirty-seven years ago, I smoked pot in college; and I never killed anyone.
Figured that's why you posted it. Bill Buckley is one of a handful of men who forged modern conservatism and integrated the conservative agenda into the GOP platform. I disgaree with the overall tone of that NR article by Buckley, saying we have lost in Iraq. I remain a strong supporter of PresBush`s general policy in WOT. I just think its critical we don't lose sight of why we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. It wasn't to set up democracy. It was to have a military foothold in the ME from which we could KILL Islamic "jihadists" and Muslim terrorists. While I'm at odds with Buckley's belief that we've lost the war in Iraq, I can appreciate the notion that nation building is not a worthwhile effort for America. At least not when it comes to the ME nationstates.
That should read, "William F. Buckley, Libertarian editor of the conservative magazine National Review,"
About 5 years ago, my buddys friend crashed his car into the school fence because he was to stoned to make a simple turn in time.
That should read, "William F. Buckley, libertarian editor of the conservative magazine National Review,"
Making a distinction without a real difference, robby.
Our Constitution is a very libertarian document, and Buckley is a conservative constitutionalist.
So I take it you support a return to alcohol prohibition?
I felt this is worth posting considering Buckley's foolish article in NRO.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I wonder why you think this would tend to discount the latest article? The "War on Drugs" has indeed been a resounding flop, leaving behind it a trail of trashed civil liberties, corrupted public officials, and jam-packed jails and prisons. Far from being a "conservative" program, it has greatly extended the power of the state and weakened the legal protection of private property as well as greatly diminishing respect for the law. What is truly tragic is that this is not the first time.
The US tried "the great experiment" in suppressing pscho-active substances with the Volstead Act, with similar results: establishing a reliable source of revenues for vast criminal enterprises, corrupting public officials in every branch of government, and generating widespread disrespect for the law.
Now we have public schools that push pscho-active drugs on students (Ritalin, etc.), while public funds are squandered in a vain attempt to suppress the supply for substances that are in huge demand at astronomic prices which help to further accelerate the growth of criminal organizations, in the "narco-states" that serve as the sources of supply for this trade, and domestically.
This has been, and continues to be, a rolling catastrophe except for those who long for to live in a state which has the power to define for everyone exactly what is required and exactly what is forbidden for each person.
You statement is ignorant.
I placed the title of this article in the search. No hits.
I added the date of this article's original publishing to clarify that it was written in 1996.
You do a disservice to fellow freepers by assuming that everyone here has been here forever.
I prefer to inform people. It is arrogant and lazy to do otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.