Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Big Drug War News (Congressman Dan Burton on the drug war)
The Agitator ^ | 17 December 2002 | Radley Balko

Posted on 12/17/2002 9:39:06 AM PST by Joe Bonforte

In a little noticed hearing of the House Government Reform Commnittee last week, Indiana Congressman (my homeotwn's Congressman actually) and longtime drug warrior Dan Burton made some stunning comments. In a hearing entitled "America's Heroin Crisis, Colombian Heroin and How We Can Improve Plan Colombia," Burton stopped just a hair short of advocating the decriminalization of drugs. Watch the video here (cut forward to 1 hour, 18 minutes into the hearing). Here's the transcript:

Dan Burton: I want to tell you something. I have been in probably a hundred or a hundred and fifty hearings like this at various times in my political career,. And the story is always the same. This goes back to the sixties. You know, thirty or thirty five years ago. And every time I have a hearing, I hear that people who get hooked on heroin and cocaine become addicted and they very rarely get off of it. And the scourge expands and expands and expands. And we have very fine law enforcement officers like you go out and fight the fight. And you see it growing and growing, and you see these horrible tragedies occur. But there is no end to it.

And I see young guys driving around in tough areas of Indianapolis in cars that I know they can’t afford and I know where they are getting their money. I mean that there is no question. A kid can’t be driving a brand-new Corvette when he lives in the inner city of Indianapolis in a ghetto. You know that he has gotta be making that money in someway that is probably not legal and probably involves drugs.

Over seventy percent of all crime is drug-related. And you alluded to that today. We saw on television recently Pablo Escobar gunned down and everybody applauded and said “that’s the end of the Medellín cartel. But it wasn’t the end. There is still a cartel down there. They are still all over the place. When you kill one, there’s ten or twenty or fifty waiting to take his place. You know why? Its because of what you just said a minute ago, Mr. Carr, Mr. Marcocci (sp). And that is that there is so much money to be made in it ­ there is always going to be another person in line to make that money.

And we go into drug eradication and we go into rehabilitation and we go into education, and we do all of these things... And the drug problem continues to increase. And it continues to cost us not billions, but trillions of dollars. Trillions! And we continue to build more and more prisons, and we put more and more people in jail, and we know that the crimes ­ most of the time ­ are related to drugs.

So I have one question I would like to ask all of you, and I think this is a question that needs to be asked. I hate drugs. I hate people who succumb to drug addiction, and I hate what it does to our society. It has hit every one of us in our families or friends of ours. But I have one question that nobody ever asks, and that is this question: What would happen if there was no profit in drugs? If there was no profit in drugs, what would happen. If they couldn’t make any money out of selling drugs, what would happen?

Carr: I would like to comment. If we made illegal... what you are arguing then is complete legalization?

Dan Burton: No I am not arguing anything. I am asking the question. Because we have been fighting this fight for thirty to forty years and the problem never goes way...

....Well I don’t think that the people in Colombia would be planting coca if they couldn’t make any money, and I don’t think they would be refining coca and heroin in Colombia if they couldn’t make any money. And I don’t think that Al Capone would have been the menace to society that he was if he couldn’t sell alcohol on the black market ­ and he did ­ and we had a horrible, horrible crime problem. Now the people who are producing drugs in Southeast Asia and Southwest Asia and Colombia and everyplace else. They don’t do it because they like to do it. They don’t fill those rooms full of money because they like to fill them full of money. They do it because they are making money.

At some point we to have to look at the overall picture and the overall picture ­ and I am not saying that there are not going to be people who are addicted ­ they are going to have to be education and rehabilitation and all of those things that you are talking about - but one of the parts of the equation that has never been talked about ­ because politicians are afraid to talk about it ­ this is my last committee hearing as Chairman. Last time! And I thought about this and thought about this, and thought about this. And one of the things that ought to be asked is “what part of the equation are we leaving out?” And “is it an important part of the equation?” And that is ­ the profit in drugs. Don’t just talk about education. Don’t just talk about eradication. Don’t just talk about killing people like Escobar, who is going to be replaced by somebody else. Let’s talk about what would happen if we started addressing how to get the profit out of drugs.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if, twenty years from now, we could look back at law-and-order Dan Burton's conversion as the "Nixon goes to China" turning point of the drug war?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: addictedlosers; antigovnerds; apotheadstory; blackhelicopters; brainlessdruggies; cheetos; chickenlittle; cocainekills; colombia; congress; conspiracists; crackbabys; curehemmorhoids; dopersarelosers; drugreformyes; drugskilledbolin; drugskilledelvis; drugskilledgram; drugskilledgrech; drugskilledhoon; drugskilledjanis; drugskilledjimi; drugskilledjohn; drugskilledmoon; drugskilledriver; drugskilledsid; drugskilledthain; drugsno; drugsruinlives; drugvicbelushi; drugvicdimwit; drugvicfarndon; drugvicgarcia; drugvicmelvoin; drugvicmydland; drugvicruffin; drugvicvalerie; gowodgetem; jbtsno; liberdopianlies; memoryloss; methdeath; nodoobieno; paranoia; ripwod; saynopetodope; skyisfalling; tinfoildruggies; warondrugs; wodlist; wodlives
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 501-509 next last
To: Texaggie79
One little known fact is that after the War Between the States the largest cause of heroin addiction, after battlefield causes, was that is was the treatment of the day for alcoholism. Our demons change with time. I'm no fan of hard drug usuage, but our current approach on all drugs is a total failure. Time for new priorities.

121 posted on 12/17/2002 12:24:41 PM PST by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Daryl Strawberry is a figment of our imagination.

Please list all your rights that Strawberry has violated. Thank you.

122 posted on 12/17/2002 12:26:37 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Does this qualify as a "government-is-full-of-evil-boogie-men-who-just-want-to-control-us tune"?

"the federal government now has total control -- leaving the states impotent and the people as captive servants to the federal government. This must be reversed if we are to survive as a free Republic and a free people."
123 posted on 12/17/2002 12:26:47 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I'm with you on ending the Federal WOD and leaving it up to the States to decide.

Do you think that the office of the drug czar and his agency should be abolished?

What about all Federal WOD funding of local governments, police departments, clinics, DARE, etc?

124 posted on 12/17/2002 12:35:09 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Conservatives don't mistrust government?

Indeed I don't trust it. I agree with TJ, it is a necessary evil. However, I do not go so far as to actually believe that every government official if pondering how to control my life.

I don't believe that every law passed is simply an attempt at CONTROLLING us. I actually see use for some laws.

125 posted on 12/17/2002 12:41:23 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I know you want to make this a "It's my damn body, I'll do what I want." issue, but that only goes as far as the FED.

Thus, you now admit that our constitution protects us from federal efforts to ban substances? How inconsistant can you get? Just a few posts ago you were defending the federal narcotics acts.

When it get's down to the state level, communities can set limits on the risks they are willing to take. If they don't like the risk of alcohol, they can ban it. Many counties do.

All levels of government can constitutionally 'regulate', within reason, the public use & sale.
-- As you admit above, outright prohibitions are unconstitutional without amendments.

126 posted on 12/17/2002 12:42:01 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
None of mine, however Straberry's neighbors have a different take on the matter.
127 posted on 12/17/2002 12:43:08 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
I agree with that.
128 posted on 12/17/2002 12:43:37 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Which of theirs?
129 posted on 12/17/2002 12:43:52 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I actually see use for some laws.

Me too. The ones which defend my rights.

130 posted on 12/17/2002 12:44:57 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I do not go so far as to actually believe that every government official if pondering how to control my life.

Straw man. Who here does believe that?

131 posted on 12/17/2002 12:45:39 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
"...you INCREASE the motivation of users and non users to use MORE."

I don't buy it. People who are intent to do drugs, will, whether they are illegal or not. People who don't do drugs wont do drugs, even if it is made legal to do so. For those that want to do drugs and get high, I say we should give them all the drugs they want free of charge and let them kill themselves. The drug problem would solve itself.

132 posted on 12/17/2002 12:47:48 PM PST by semaj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
I would have no problem if the federal WOD were reduced to only assisting states that wished to be helped in their fight against drugs there. However, they would have no SAY in the laws.

133 posted on 12/17/2002 12:49:00 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Just a few posts ago you were defending the federal narcotics acts.

Only defending why it was done. I never said it was constitutional.

134 posted on 12/17/2002 12:50:12 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Well, if their state chose to criminalize crack, and his neighbors felt threatened by his usage, then they have the right to see him properly punished.
135 posted on 12/17/2002 12:51:34 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
The USC states. THOSE HELD BY THE PEOPLE. Well, I hold my safety, the security of my community, ect to be a right. And someone using HARD drugs violates that.
136 posted on 12/17/2002 12:52:39 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Well, do you actually believe that the FED narcotics act was simply a power grab? That the congressmen of that time simply wanted to CONTROL our lives?
137 posted on 12/17/2002 12:53:32 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
And someone using HARD drugs violates that.

Nonsense, you made that up, no such right exists.

138 posted on 12/17/2002 12:54:46 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: All
I think it's quite telling that the only anti-legalization/decrim posters who showed up on this thread were the intelligent ones who give thoughtful response when challenged (TexAggie, Chemist Geek, etc.), as opposed to the usual gang (Dane, Kevin Curry, Roscoe), the only exception being Cultural Jihad who couldn't resist throwing in a quick jab, but then retreated when posed with a direct question.
139 posted on 12/17/2002 12:58:05 PM PST by jmc813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
No such righ to smoke crack in a community exists either.
140 posted on 12/17/2002 12:59:07 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 501-509 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson