You will note it reads, "the government has", not, "the government should have", and not, "the federal government has."
Posted on 05/21/2009 10:27:30 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
DENVER -- Admitting that it may be "political suicide" former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said its time to consider legalizing drugs.
He spoke Wednesday to the Lincoln Club of Colorado, a Republican group that's been active in the state for 90 years. It's the first time Tancredo has spoken on the drug issue. He ran for president in 2008 on an anti-illegal immigration platform that has brought him passionate support and criticism.
Tancredo noted that he has never used drugs, but said the war has failed.
"I am convinced that what we are doing is not working," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedenverchannel.com ...
Bravo to Tom -- and to you -- for being honest about this!
People here are "shooting the messenger" because they don't like the message that "we've lost the war on drugs", however true it may be. On one hand, we say that we want "honest politicians", but on the other, we really hate it when politicians tell us what we don't want to hear.
The fact is that you can't save people from themselves -- if they want to get drugs, they will, and that's why there will always be "a drug trade" whether we like it or not. The only thing that the war on drugs has done has been to make that drug trade far more profitable and violent.
There is only so much violence that John Q Public is willing to tolerate on their streets to fight this "war" -- especially when we have tied the hands of law enforcement to do what's needed to ever win it.
It's a Catch 22 -- lose your civil rights to win a drug war, or lose a drug war to preserve your rights as citizens. Whatever potential we have to win one, loses us the other -- it isn't the way we wish it was, but it is the way it is. I'd rather admit losing the war on drugs, than I would sacrifice my rights as a citizen to the government -- it's a tough choice, but one that I ultimately must make.
Americans these days, apparently, have developed an affection for their chains.
good for him
***...as it has the right to regulate food and ethical drugs.***
It does?
Ending the prohibition on pot would hurt the two segments of our population that want to keep it illegal: 1) the black market players (growers/smuggler/sellers) that will lose profits if legal product was commercially available and 2) the law enforement agencies that would lose funding from the government and from property siezures and who would have to lay off thousands of officers because of the lack of work.
The rest of the country would benefit by reduction in prison populations, less expensive product negating criminal activity to fund a drug habit (prostitution, burglary,etc) and a government with a new revenue stream via pot taxes.
Article 1, section 8, clause 18.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3
Translation: "by the way, the federal government can do anything it wants"
We can thank Alexander Hamilton, great knee-pad wearer for limitless central government power, for corrupting the nascent US Constitution with these seeds of tyranny.
Thank God Aaron Burr extinguished that POS before he could do more damage.
(Lest someone accuse me of some burning hatred of "financiers" (generally a term today used as code to imply a rather tiresome charge of more mundane bigotry), I would remind all assembled that Hamilton gave us nationalized banking, Burr gave us two great American private banks)
You will note it reads, "the government has", not, "the government should have", and not, "the federal government has."
Once any government decides on prohibition, then they make a market black, i.e. with people willing to kill or go to jail because it is so profitable. Where's that black market profitability with underage alcohol drinking?
Only individual citizens have RIGHTS. Governments just have powers granted by the governed.
Of course it’s a failure, at least to its public stated purpose. However to some, it is a necessary failure.
I always wondered what allows people to have the illogical idea that alcohol, a drug, should be legal but “drugs” should be illegal. Especially a drug like pot, which is nowhere near as dangerous as booze.
At least someone who is also for alcohol prohibition is being intellectually consistent.
Once any government decides on prohibition, then they make a market black, i.e. with people willing to kill or go to jail because it is so profitable. Where's that black market profitability with underage alcohol drinking?
Let me elaborate. Just what's a kid? What's the age of majority that you have all the rights of an adult? This is tricky. Modern studies of brain imaging indicate that "Teen Brain Still Developing and Maturing to Mid 20s."
It's tricky because it's fairly arbitrary. What age do you pick for determining the cut-off ages for be able to legally marry, smoke or use tobacco, drink alcohol, vote, or becoming an infantryman? There's a reason for the root of the word infantry. It gets me when I hear stories about child soldiers that are obviously at least old teenagers.
What about statutory rape, or being tried as an adult? Those are just some of the problems with the "It's for the children," argument i.e. when should they be considered adults. I have trouble denying eighteen year old infantrymen any rights. I wish they couldn't vote until they were at least twenty five, but that's another story.
If it is found in nature, I would let them sell it like alcohol and tobacco, possibly with the exception of hallucinogens. If it is chemically processed and refined, then it would come under the juridiction of the DEA, FDA or both. Making opium and coca leaves illegal created the incentive to concentrate the active ingredients into heroin and cocaine.
That also created the incentive to inject drugss intravenously with all the attendant spread of viral and bacterial disease. The latter makes me believe in needle exchange programs, not just for the immediate costs to society of the intravenous drug abuser, but to the innocent victims that they infect with various forms of hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, etc. It's quite a list.
Taxing it like alcohol and tobacco will only become problematic when the taxes are so great that the government creates the temptation to just steal it and sell it relatively cheaply.
Only the left believes you can change human nature. Those who believe harsh penalties deter it can look at how chock full the prisons are. The war on some drugs is just a war on human nature, IMHO.
Thank you for expressing your alternate opinion. I read it and appreciate it.
Great post bump!
Don’t believe in police, firemen, medics as slaves to others.
So, don’t blame the taxes at the point of a sheriff’s gun on me.
So long as you have more than one person, you will have socialized risk in everything, indemnified or not
I’m with Tancredo on this, the war on drugs is a monumental failure. It has actually increased the number of people using drugs - absolutely does not work.
Libertarians favor smaller government - that would end the welfare state right there.
I would disagree with this. Prohibition does work. But it has to be enforced at all levels of a society, or it will not. Societal forces that allow for the sub-culture to form and exist must also be controlled, or the behavior will be continued.
"No-fault" divorce and single parent homes are two of those societal forces. Children raised without guidance from both parents in a stable home are almost guaranteed to enter the party scene, and continue the same behavior which caused their parents predictable failures.
Especially harmful is the absence of the male role model - Where the woman yields, is nurture, loving and giving, it is the man who is generally unyielding - He is law and justice, demanding responsibility and discipline.
Our education system teaches narcissism, and the popular culture backs it up. "Do your own thing" is not liberty. It is libertine. Until society returns to some semblance of right and wrong, nothing will truly change.
But, now I am arguing your case, aren't I? Not really. Prior to the 60's drugs were all illegal at the state level to some degree. and the popular culture was against them, as were societal and familial norms. The prohibition against drugs worked pretty well.
To legalize drugs is to finally lose the last leg of that fight to liberalization. That cannot be good. What needs to occur is strengthening of the other legs. As I said upthread, I agree that the fed has overstepped it's bounds, and that states rights and personal rights have been lost. Those must be restored. But there must be a uniform means of addressing the issue in order to be effective.
And foremost among them, before anyone says ANY effort has been made, close that damnable border. Seal it off. That is definitely within Federal jurisdiction, and is way cheaper and more effective than any other thing they might endeavor to do. Until that is done properly, and with great vigor, don't even tell me that they have tried and lost.
With our product liability laws I can’t see how any company could market those drugs. They are deadly substances. I think pot would be do-able.
I will grant you this. Let’s have one of the laboratories of democracy test market the idea...say California. Think of how much money regulation/taxation would bring into their coffers...perhaps they wouldn’t go bankrupt. Then we’ll see where they’re at in 5, 10, 20 years.
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.