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?
What were they thinking?!
I think that's pretty much how DC feels about the rest of the country. I can see why you have so much more faith in them than in your neighbors.
No, however, the "yutes" will not have the self-control or wisdom to limit their intake of legalized or decriminalized recreational pharmaceuticals. Fer cryin out loud, look at the weekly keggers on college campi, and imagine open, widely available drugs added into that mix.
I don't know what the solution is, or even if there is one. If there were some way to guarantee that the consequences of drug use and addiction could be limited to those individual persons alone, I'd be all for legalization. However, there can be no such guarantee...
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.
Only defending why it was done. I never said it was constitutional.
Very well, you admit to defending unconstitutional acts.
Thank you.
Uh, you haven't been to any college campi lately, have you? Virtually any drug you're looking for is easily available.
And BTW, it's telling that you make alcohol out to be LESS DANGEROUS than illegal drugs. Fact is, if you could transition a college campus off of alcohol to marijuana, or even cocaine, you'd see a lot less chaos and destruction on campus.
Your argument should be: "Kids can't handle their alcohol -- let's BRING BACK PROHIBITION!"
AFAIK, drugs are widely available now, albeit not openly. Beyond that, is that a rational basis for determining what the appropriate limits of government, particularly the federal government are?
I don't know what the solution is, or even if there is one. If there were some way to guarantee that the consequences of drug use and addiction could be limited to those individual persons alone, I'd be all for legalization. However, there can be no such guarantee...
There are never any guarantees, except that if we keep doing what we're doing we're going to keep getting more and more of what we've got now.
Alcyhol is the by far the most used and easily available. If you switched it with pot, it would be a mellow party. If you switched in X, DJ Dan would be a lot richer. If you switched in cocaine, well, I would be more concerned. PCP, same way. Heroine, everyone would be laid out, but none of them would be at college in the first place.
For some reason, beer just fits perfectly.
I will fight to by dying breath the foces which try to drag this American society down into becoming a cesspool of drug-addled shambing wrecks.
It's just head-shakingly depressing to think about how vilified alcohol WOULD BE if it were a newly discovered drug. If we were a nation of potheads, and beer were suddenly invented, we'd outlaw that sucker in a minute. But since it's 'socially acceptable', WOD-lovers rationalize all manner of chaos that it creates.
That pretty much covers all addictive drugs. Alcohol has that ability, at least for some. Extacy doesn't seem to be addictive, at least physically. How would you characterize codeine, morphine, dexedrine, benzedrine, qualude, or valium?
Alcohol has been used resposibly by the majority of society since it existed. I will probably have a beer this evening and feel a slight buzz, with no major change in my personality or feeling.
You cannot say the same for HARD drugs. Like I say, they are a different animal.
So, Geek, are you in favor of bringing back Prohibition, or not? If, indeed, you're in favor of "fighting to your dying breath" to avoid the "cesspool of drug-addled shambling wrecks," you should definitely be in favor of bringing back Prohibition. Alcohol creates far more damage and danger to our Republic than any illegal drug you can dream up in your nightmares.
So, Mr. Crusader, what's your stand on booze? Without a cogent argument in favor of Prohibition, I simply have to believe that you're just a paternalist drunk who doesn't want HIS drug stepped on. Some consistency would do wonders here.
I thoroughly disagree with you. Your argument has is based on some assumptions and conventions that make an easy 1-to-1 equivalence pratically impossible. #1, alcohol is socially acceptable, so you'd expect many 'social' users of alcohol wouldn't cause many problems, since they're not hard-core.
Users of illegal drugs are, almost by definition, hard-core. They're willing to break the law to get them, so you'd EXPECT more chaos from those willing to use them.
Then you lump a whole bunch of drugs into the "HARD" drugs category... nebulous, anecdotal opinion on your part, not fact.
Many of these 'hard' drugs are a different animal, because most people would never use them.
In the end, this argument that alcohol is used responsibly, while others would not, is built on a false foundation -- that alcohol is used responsibly. Is an alcoholic who never gets busted for DUI, never gets arrested for being drunk in public, but nevertheless ruins his family with his addiction any better than a heroin addict who does the same thing?
The fallacy that alcohol 'isn't that bad' is simply perpetuated by those who enjoy it. Objectively, alcohol is a very dangerous drug, legal or illegal.
Coupled with its social acceptability, it's the drug you should worry about. Heroin will never be socially acceptable. Cocaine was, in the 70s, in certain circles, but is not any longer. Pot can be acceptable, but in most places not.
If you're really worried about the damage of drugs, focus on their social acceptability, not their legality. If alcohol were the social pariah that PCP is, noboby would drink it, legal or not.
As for Jesus, so what? He's probably the one guy on Earth who really could 'hold his liquor'. Bully for him. I'd bet that if the society were 'smoking the herb' in his day, he'd have tried that, too.
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.
Only defending why it was done. I never said it was constitutional.
Very well, you admit to defending unconstitutional acts.
Thank you.
Shut up.... I never said I supported it.
171 posted on 12/17/2002 2:02 PM PST by Texaggie79
I should 'shut up' about your admitted defense of unconstitutional acts?
-- I'd say your irrational denial of not 'supporting' acts you defend is worth speaking about on a site dedicated to defending the constitution.
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.