In response to a previous post, I got this comment:
I’ve discovered that the issue which transcends all political boundaries better than any other issue is the comprehension that the War on Drugs is a failure. Consider this organization: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. It’s comprised of cops, judges, prosecutors and others in the criminal justice system, as well as concerned citizens, who are all opposed to the War on Drugs. We believe that the govt should control the manufacture and distribution of all drugs—not the cartels, criminals and international terrorists. These folks explain this issue nearly every day on talk radio, to civic grps, in front of church congregations and even to military officers and enlisted people…and the result is overwhelmingly positive.
Quite a provocative view for cops to take…but who better to explain the issue than the very people tasked with promulgating the policy?
Sincerely,
Mike Smithson
Speakers Bureau Coordinator
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
So, if the failure of the War on Drugs “transcends all political boundaries better than any other issue” why isn’t it an issue? What politician running for office promised to decriminalize drugs—any drugs? What politician even promised to reign in the abuses of the war on drugs? What politician accused his opponent of passing drug laws that allow masked police to conduct midnight raids into people’s homes?
Nobody with real power is on our side.
Some nationally visible politicians have spoken out against the War on Drugs in the last few decades—Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke in the ’80’s and New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson in the ’90’s—but they’ve been few and far between.
Don’t get me wrong. LEAP is a great organization. I’m a “Friend of LEAP“—a non-law-enforcement member— and I’ve linked to their stuff before. They’re fighting the good fight. But the positive responses to LEAP speakers—or to any other decriminalization effort—don’t seem to be translating into political power.
In the corner of the blogosphere I inhabit, a lot of people oppose the War on Drugs. But out in the real world, it’s a fringe issue. Crazy ideas like walling off Mexico get serious debate and coverage on all the talk shows. But ending a policy that costs billions of dollars, jails hundreds of thousands of Americans, and crushes our civil liberties? Not up for debate anywhere that matters.
Folks like Kos have been pushing a new concept of a Libertarian Democrat. It’s been getting a lot of attention in the blogosphere. According to Kos, here’s what a Libertarian Democrat believes:
A Libertarian Dem rejects government efforts to intrude in our bedrooms and churches. A Libertarian Dem rejects government “Big Brother” efforts, such as the NSA spying of tens of millions of Americans. A Libertarian Dem rejects efforts to strip away rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights — from the First Amendment to the 10th. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.
…
A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement — we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want. A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked. A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers. A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness. A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on.
Notice what’s missing?
The War on Drugs is a war on freedom that should appeal to any libertarian, and the War on Drugs has had devastating effects on minorites and the poor. Opposition to the War on Drugs should be the defining belief of anyone claiming to be a Libertarian Democrat.
But as usual, it gets no attention at all.
Mark:
Your right, few politicians have the balls to take on the ‘law-and-order’ demagogues in our society. Three decades of unrelenting drug war fear-mongering has pretty much brain-washed America to turn its collective eyes away when anyone talks about drug policy.
A great example of this happened in Sept. in a U.S. senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing chaired by Dick Lugar. The main witness, there to discuss Afghan policy, was Professor Barnett Rubin a New York Univ. Asian policy expert. At the end of his testimony he delivered this statement:
“The international drug control regime, which criminalizes narcotics, does not reduce drug use, but it does produce huge profits for criminals and the armed groups and corrupt officials who protect them. Our drug policy grants huge subsidies to our enemies.”
Dr. Rubin concluded: “If it were not illegal, it would be worth hardly anything. It’s only its illegality that makes it so valuable.”
When Professor Rubin made this comment Chairman Lugar, with a nervous laugh that admitted the validity of Dr. Rubin’s assertion, quickly closed the hearings for the day. That nervous laugh spoke clearly to me. Members of congress know that Dr. Rubin is absolutely right: “Our drug policy grants huge subsidies to our enemies”. Both the Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. congress know this and REFUSE to reform this failed policy.
Here is my longer essay on the drug war connection to the proliferation of stateless terrorism. “Our drug policy grants huge subsidies to our enemies” (includes video and transcript links for Dr. Rubin’s testimony)
America has been willing to accept the crime and addiction that the prohibition inflicts on us. It looks like our congress is also willing to accept stateless terrorism as collateral damage of the drug war.