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?
Again?
OMGosh!
Call Je$$ie JackSon, quick!!
It's time to Bork Lott, Dan Burton!
And, yes, I do think it is a power grab on the part of the federal government. Do I think there are some in Washington that are deluded into believing what they advocate is working? Sure. But it is costing the federal government (taxpayers) millions or someone said trillions to fight this. That is a lot of taxpayer dollars for those folks in Washington to direct to the proper place, taking a little postage costs out on the way. Now anyone who can't believe that just hasn't been watching our government lately.
You just cannot make laws to save people from themselves. So why not make laws to punish them if, in pursuit of their follies, they harm other people. Otherwise, let them do what they do, and pay the consequences. It appears they are going to get the drugs anyway, but if it did not cost so much, maybe so many innocent people would not get mugged, burglarized, or killed in the process.
Do I think anything will change? No, it is too profitable for everyone from the growers, smugglers, dealers, to the local law enforcement officials (remember they get to keep a lot of the money and property that is seized), on to the politicians that get to distribute taxpayer dollars and get drug contributions - whether they are aware of it or not. The forgotten person is the law abiding, tax paying, victim of violence caused by this problem.
Would this nation decend into a nation of drug users? Who knows, but what we are doing is not working at all. What you might be doing is freeing up those law enforcement people to actually tackle other problems in this country. You just might be freeing a lot of innocent people from the grip of this violence. You might be freeing taxpayers up from paying the huge costs of this failed policy.
I don't think we will see cocaine on the Wal Mart shelves and for those who think it would be abominable for some company such as R J REynolds to make a profit, is it more acceptable for murdering drug dealers to make their profits?
You see, it is THROUGH the states in which we determine the mind of the people.
Only by the constitution.
Still waiting to see where it enumerates the right to smoke crack.
Where does our constitution eumerate the right to smoke anything? -- It doesn't have to, as the 9th makes clear to anyone using half a brain.
-- And, in fact you just told us:
"Thusly, prohibitional laws by the states are not unconstitutional."
Which must mean that in your view, a state can prohibit ANYthing, including smoking tobacco, anywhere, anytime.
You have a very communitarian & authoritaran view of a 'republican form of government', aggie.
Yes. The states are the will of the people.
Yes. The states are the will of the people.
Thank you. You are not describing the principles basic to our constitutional republic.
You are advocating a system of democratic majority rule.
A tyranny of the 'peoples will'.
Incredible.
You would need a license to purchase and use any recreational drug gun (alcohol and tobacco included) (deer rifles and duck guns included). Much the same as you need a license to operate a car.
To obtain a license, you would be required to have health mental health insurance. This puts the health burden on the user, not the common citizen.
You would be required to read the latest literature regarding the known dangers of the drug guns and sign a release form. This puts the legal responsibility on the user.
All employers and health insurers of the user would be notified. Thus the financial burden is on the user. owner Employers would have to make their policy known for each type of drug gun before the user owner applies for a license though. The employer would have the right to continue the user's owners employment or not, based upon previously stated policy.
The license applicant would then pay some small administrative fee to process the application (like what is done for a drivers license). The benefit to the user owner is that he would be able to go to a licensed dealer, purchase the drugs Gun for much less than the cost from an illegal dealer, with better quality, and without fear of prosecution.
The restrictions of the license may vary from drug to drug gun to gun. Some of the harder drugs semi-automatic guns may restrict usage to personal residences only. Tobacco duck guns may have the fewest restrictions - just don't give it to minors
. Violation of the license would be a felony.
Why a license? Responsible users gun owners will have no problem with this. The burden of use will be all theirs. Problem users owners will be locked away for a long time. The illegal market then dries up.
Brilliant, moron. But you dreamed this up yourself? You should be nationally syndicated.
A well regulated Militia buzz, being necessary to the security of a free State of mind, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms crack, shall not be infringed
Sounds like Dan is starting to get a clue.
"When even pro-Drug-War congressmen start to see the insanity of the War on Drugs, something must be about to change."
What may be about to change is that the powers that be will realize that Dan may have to go. They can't have him out there talking sense like this.
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.