March 22, 2007
Notes To The Left Part Two: Stop Giving The Drug Reform Community To The Libertarians
The drug reform community is large, well funded, and well organized yet no party which is thought of as being on the left of the political spectrum has truly courted them, well as not as well as the Libertarians have.
From the Libertarian Party's website:
"Drug prohibition does more to make Americans unsafe than any other factor. Just as alcohol prohibition gave us Al Capone and the mafia, drug prohibition has given us the Crips, the Bloods and drive-by shootings. Consider the historical evidence: America's murder rate rose nearly 70% during alcohol prohibition, but returned to its previous levels after prohibition ended. Now, since the War on Drugs began, America's murder rates have doubled. The cause/effect relationship is clear. Prohibition is putting innocent lives at risk.
What's more, drug prohibition also inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies. Prohibition puts your property at risk. Finally, nearly one half of all police resources are devoted to stopping drug trafficking, instead of preventing violent crime. The bottom line? By ending drug prohibition Libertarians would double the resources available for crime prevention, and significantly reduce the number of violent criminals at work in your neighborhood." (1)
Compare that to the Green Party's stance from their website:
"Law enforcement is placing too much emphasis on drug-related and petty street crimes, and not enough on prosecution of corporate, white collar, and environmental crimes.
At the same time, we must develop a firm approach to law enforcement that directly addresses violent crime, including trafficking in hard drugs.
Those convicted of non-violent offenses should be handled by other programs including halfway houses, electronic monitoring, work-furlough, community service and restitution programs. Substance abuse should be addressed as a medical problem requiring treatment, not imprisonment, and a failed drug test should not result in revocation of parole. Incarcerated prisoners of the drug war should be release to the above programs.
We call for decriminalization of victimless crimes. For example, the possession of small amounts of marijuana. We call for legalization of industrial hemp and all its many uses. We call for an end to the "war on drugs." We support expanded drug counseling and treatment." (2)
The Democratic Party didn't even address this issue in their 2004 party platform. (3)
The mere fact that the Democrats failed to even address this issue in their 2004 platform tells the drug reform community they do not care about you. If they did they would have at least gave you a sentence in their platform, thus the Democrats get an 'F'.
Now on to Greens:
Pointing out the wasted funds on drug laws by law enforcement is a definite plus. And by putting those involved in non-violent drug offenses into medicinal / treatment programs is a definite plus. A call for decriminilization is decent, but it is not logical (the logical reasoning of decriminilization versus legalization will be discussed in depth in a future article). The end to the 'Drug War' and the legalization of hemp is again a plus. Overall I would grade this policy as a 'B'.
Now on to the Libertarian's:
The policy of the Libertarian Party is truly impressive and has very, very, very few flaws. Overall I would grade it as an A minus. Most importantly they will destroy the drug trade, their policy is as such that dealers would no longer be able to make money and thus they would shut down the black market completely. In shutting down the illegal drug trade the violence associated with it would be gone. Also by ending prohibition they would be freeing thousands of hours of work by local, state or federal workers and providing a huge tax base for our country.
So agian, until someone else stands up the Libertairans have already won.
1. http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml
2. http://gp.org/platform/2004/socjustice.html#1001998
3.http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
Posted by Richard Rhodes at March 22, 2007 03:00 AMI think the Democratic Party’s role is to encourage education and promote drug abuse treatment.
Since the mainstream voters believe marijuana is a dangerous drug, no mainstream party can adopt reform until the mainstream voters see it as not a threat.
Posted by: gergle at March 22, 2007 06:41 AMIt will be long time before the national Dems can embrace drug legalization of any sort. The impetus will have to come from the states and the, er, grassroots.
Posted by: Woody Mena at March 22, 2007 08:18 AM‘Since the mainstream voters believe marijuana is a dangerous drug,…’
‘This is your brain…’
It depends on who you ask.
Most people over the age of 60 believe one hit from a ‘marijauna cigarette’ will fry your brain.
Then you have the vietnam vets and the ‘flower children’ …
Our government is not going to run an ad supporting pot. How could they possibly admit they were wrong!!??
There is a misleading campaign to say that the use of marijauna leads to the use of more serious drugs such as heroin and crack.
Many, many people believe this is true.
Those that smoke pot know that it isn’t true.
Those that use marijauna recreationally don’t exactly brag about it so… those who don’t never realize they are speaking to someone who does. Thus, the stereotyping continues … Pot is illegal… Marijauna kills… Potheads just lay around living off welfare and steal to pay for their habit …
On the news the other night someone said, ‘Noone ever died from smoking a joint.’
I don’t know if that’s true but there aren’t any statistics to match drinking and driving or the trouble caused by harder drugs.
I’ve heard more bad news about prescription drugs than I’ve ever heard about marijauna.
How can anyone expect pot to be legalized when Obama was treated like a leper for being a cigarette smoker?
Imagine the tax $$ our government would take in!!
It’s not a good sell on the campaign trail though.
Richard, Are you assuming that the petty crimes you mentioned will be cut by the percentages shown should drugs be legalized, and then the Crips and Bloods would cease to exist?
Posted by: j2t2 at March 22, 2007 09:58 AMrichard
i have to agree, while i think we all realize cocaine, meth , herion, and many other hard drugs are a serious health issues. the current policy does nothing but create a second more serious problem being organized crime, and violence. the billions spent on enforcement, i’m guessing thats the number, could be better spent elsewhere.
as far as pot goes, i can see no real reason it shouldn’t be legal. alcohol, and tobacco destroy far more lives than pot ever could. in fact i can’t ever remember hearing of a pot related crime, other than the violence involved in smuggling it. i have to say as a kid i didn’t get much done when i smoked it,but i did notice i tended to get in a hell of a lot more trouble when i was out drinking. keep in mind this is coming from a republican. go figure.
you’d think after the disaster of prohibition, the gov’t would have learned thier lesson.
Posted by: dbs at March 22, 2007 01:49 PMj2t2
i think it would definitely have an affect on the cartels that do the smuggling, with legalization the profitability would go into the toilet. i doubt it would put the la street gangs out of business though. they would just focus on other thing like prostitution and extortion.
Posted by: dbs at March 22, 2007 02:01 PMj2t2: I didn’t say that legalization would eliminate street gangs, that was from the Libertarian Party’s website. I agree with dbs that they would just move on to other things like prostitution, extortion, robbery etc.
Posted by: Richard Rhodes at March 22, 2007 02:53 PMRichard-
Interesting post. Just wondering, do you think it is possible that the Greens emphasize drug issues less than the Libertarians because they realize the argument made by Libs., coming from Greens, would be taken by main stream America as less credible. I think many Americans think of the Greens as a party who has an agenda re: drug legalization based upon their desire for legal consumption. Thus, if the Greens were to come out strongly with the safety/economic argument it might be seen as disingenuous. What do you think?
Posted by: jrb at March 22, 2007 03:27 PMjrb: I think that Greens have emphasized the issue less not because it will be seen as less credible but because many Greens like many Democrats don’t think the mainstream will buy into it. Thus I think many Greens think that if they push it too hard they will be seen further on the fringes, and will hurt the party.
However I disagree with most Greens, I think pushing this issue could give the party more credibility. The Greens are known to come out on issues that get no media coverage by the mainstream and this is one of those issues. There are over 20 million people in the United States who smoke cannabis at least once a year, and I believe three to five million who smoke it at least once a week. Moreover organizations like Students for Sensible Drug Policy, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Drug Policy Alliance, and so on are all very well funded and have many many supporters. I believe if the Greens came out with a stronger argument than they have now that alot of the people that support these organizations would turn Green.
Posted by: Richard Rhodes at March 22, 2007 07:41 PMRichard, Wasnt trying to put words in your mouth, just wondering. I think the problem either the greens or the libertarians would have in gaining widespread acceptance of their position is most people lump pot in with the harder drugs and because of that would prefer to just keep the status quo on all drugs.
This whole issue reminds me of an R Crumb comic that illustrated what a pot smoker thought of himself as opposed to what a non user thought of the pot smoker. The illusion potheads have of the themselves as a knight in shining armor is real only to them.
After all they cant even spell “normal” correctly why would we trust them with something tougher than that?
j2t2,
“After all they cant even spell “normal” correctly why would we trust them with something tougher than that?”
Actually, my mom’s really good friend plant manager for a major corporation; he smokes marijuana.
So is Master P, a rapper who started a business off the income of a single ice cream truck to obtain his current wealth of $500,000,000.
You may be surprised at who uses pot and how little it actually affects them.
Yes, there are smokers who are stupid, but there are just as many non-smokers who are just as stupid.
Consider the average IQ; it’s 100. That is considered a G.E.D. level of intelligence.
Pot smokers are not unintelligent, people are unintelligent and some of them smoke pot.
Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at March 23, 2007 01:38 PMRichard,
“There are over 20 million people in the United States who smoke cannabis at least once a year, and I believe three to five million who smoke it at least once a week.”
I think that is a huge understatement.
“According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, in the US in 2002 there were 697,082 marijuana arrests” The November Coalition
Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at March 23, 2007 02:21 PMBryan AJ Kennedy: I got those figures from a book by Ed Rosenthal “Why Marijuana Should Be Legal”, the book is about 5 years old now so the numbers may be a bit outdated but are still probably close.
Posted by: Richard Rhodes at March 23, 2007 04:40 PMRichard, how big is the “drug reform” constituency? What kind of voting bloc do they represent? I mean, if it’s just a few thousand ageing hippies and white college kids with dreads, then why should any major political party care?
Posted by: American Pundit at March 23, 2007 06:39 PMAP said: “I mean, if it’s just a few thousand ageing hippies and white college kids with dreads, then why should any major political party care?”
This is such a terrible stereotypical statement, this statement is used by people who want to bash anyone speaking out against the drug war without actually having to find facts to back up their argument.
AP said: “Richard, how big is the “drug reform” constituency? What kind of voting bloc do they represent?”
Thirteen states have decriminalized cannabis, and twelve have made it available medically. This did not happen without a lot of work. All of the people in all of these states who pushed for this legislation and went out and knocked doors or petitioned for it are part of the drug reform community. The three to five million adults who smoke cannabis at least once a week are part of the drug reform community. All of the people who donate and work for NORML, SSDP, ESDP, DPA, CHEAR, and other organizations are part of the drug reform community. The problem is because no major party has courted them that they are splintered and have no representation, and are thus thrown away and stereotyped.
Posted by: Richard Rhodes at March 23, 2007 07:19 PMBryan, just joking my friend I was referring to NORML the organization. I dont really think all potheads are stupid or below average.
Posted by: j2t2 at March 23, 2007 08:46 PMLet’s hear it from the Word of God….
Genesis Ch 1:
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
