Sting and Soros Hook Up For A Duet Of Pro-Drug Stupidity
by Kurt SchlichterSeeing that George Soros and Sting are working together to “end the drug war” puts me in mind of a story an Army buddy who works in the DEA told me about busting in the door of a drug house only to find three occupants – the oldest four years old, having been left in charge while his “parents” went out to score meth. Yeah, drug use is a victimless crime – if you ignore the victims.
Apparently not content to subsidize the whining of the nonentities at Media Matters, Soros is taking a break from his adventures in currency manipulation and general scuzziness to enlist entertainment celebrities like Sting in his newest quest. The Drug Policy Alliance is the result, a group whose members, as its founder puts it, “come from across the drug use spectrum.” Yes, the junkies, stoners, hopheads, dope fiends, pill-poppers, and Lindsay Lohan are unanimous: Drug laws are bad, and it’s probably BusHitler’s fault.
The threshold problem with comments by Sting such as, “The war on drugs represents an extraordinary violation of human rights,” is that Sting presumably not only believes this piffle, but further believes that he can put down his bass and offer meaningful input into the discussion. This assumption of competence is a common delusion among celebrities, and here it has more potential for damage than most mindless celebribabble.
Now, Sting is not alone – no one in that clip says anything worthwhile. One woman, who is bald for no apparent reason, states that “The War on Drugs is a war on people of color,” as if Americans decided they would outlaw crack because they fear that black people might enjoy themselves. Montel Williams shows up to explain that drug laws prevent him from making choices about his own body, but the awful tie and ridiculous earring he chose to wear make a powerful argument against allowing him to make any kind of choices at all.
Tony Papa also appears. He went to jail for 12 years for being part of a drug deal – oh, I mean committing “a nonviolent drug offense” – and became an artist on the taxpayer’s dime. While most of us will likely ask “Why only 12?,” naturally Papa is worshipped by trendy leftist celebrities. Some Hollywood half-wit even scooped up the rights to his inspiring story. So, to repeat, Tony Papa joined a drug conspiracy, got arrested, went to jail, leveraged that into becoming a hip artist and the subject of a movie, and yet he is somehow the real victim.
Of course, there’s also the perennial “America imprisons more people than anywhere else in the world!” meme. In fact, the only drug incarceration problem in America is that too few drug dealers are incarcerated. Sting suffers from the same delusion that afflicts many of his celebrity pals. He seems to think that if the kind of people who deal drugs didn’t have drugs to deal, they would naturally flock to the world of hard work and responsibility. Oh, if only drugs weren’t illegal, the drug dealing scumbags who infest our ghettos, barrios and college sociology departments would morph into clean-shaved, untatted workerbees eagerly embracing the world of 9-5 employment. Yeah, it was outlawing meth and crack that turned the scumbags into scumbags.
At one point, the clip promises “new solutions” to the drug problem. Then Sting pops back up, smug and self-satisfied, to announce that drug laws violate his individual sovereignty. Uh, typically, when you say you are going to provide new solutions you might consider, you know, providing some new solutions instead of some new cliché.
I certainly enjoy Sting and his pals’ new-found appreciation of my personal autonomy and “sovereignty over my body.” I assume they’ll be standing by me when I reject the government’s interference in my health care decisions. Unlikely. If you think consistency is one of their strong points, perhaps you’ve been smoking the same stuff as them.
Now, Sting was always annoying but here he is reaching new heights of crappiness and pomposity in direct proportion to his declining relevance. It’s always a pleasure to hear some Brit mega-millionaire who glides around his English manor practicing tantric sex sound off on American domestic policy.
Please Sting, save us! Unleash the full intellectual firepower you’ve amassed writing forgettable smooth jazz/rock fusion tunes for people who buy their music at Starbucks. Just because you’ve been waited on hand and foot for three decades by a coterie of professional sycophants telling you you’re wiser than Buddha and smarter than Einstein doesn’t mean it’s true.
There may be a case for looking at our drug laws, but these nimrods don’t make it. The most compelling points are made by the conservatives at National Review and the libertarians at Reason. Sure, pot smokers steal your snacks, listen to Phish and sound-off with long, disjointed monologues about the miracle of hemp, but I have a hard time getting too bent out of shape by them. Many celebrities are among them, but Sting and Soros aren’t just talking about causal stoners. They think we ought to go open season on meth, crack and whatever else these degenerate half-wits today are ingesting. No thanks – I’d prefer not to live with the mess you’re rich enough to ignore.
The fact is that His Stingness knows nothing – or cares nothing – about the unspeakable devastation drugs cause, particularly within the inner cities. Instead of standing behind the one truly effective response to urban drug terror – throwing the bastards in a cell and dropping the key down the Guatemalan sinkhole – His Majesty Sting decrees that drug dealing scumbags should run free, then retreats back behind his gates and armed guards to further hone his delayed orgasm skills.
Well, Sting, let’s discuss your really keen points about why poison ought to be legal. But let’s expand the scope of our discussion to include some other celebrities who might be able to provide us with some valuable insights. Let’s invite Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger, Brad Renfro, DJ AM, and Brittany Murphy to weigh in with their points of view. Oh wait, they’re all dead. So are just a few others.
Like a Sean Penn who can’t help but fly into some hellhole, figuratively fellate the local anti-American strongman then jet back to Santa Monica in time for dinner at Pizzeria Mozza, Sting wanders out of his fairy-tale life for a few minutes to tell the benighted peons in the real world how they need to live their lives before retiring back inside his palace behind three layers of security. The violence, the abuse, the wasted potential brought on by drugs mean nothing to him; what is important is his own act of scolding his lessers for failing to conform to his personal vision.
That’s Sting’s high – lording over others as if he was something more than a glorified cruise ship bassist who got lucky and didn’t have to spend his career cranking out covers of Billy Joel’s “Uptown Girl” for Corona-swilling passengers during runs between San Diego and Puerto Vallarta on the S.S. Living Hell. And like so many in the entertainment world, he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of stupid ideas – with intent to distribute.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
580 Comments
Sounds like these libutards took too many already, their brains are fried to the maximum if they spout off crap like this.
I happen to believe that addicts are sick individuals in need of help. If you put meth user in prison, he's not going to come out cured. If that meth addict abuses a child, steals to feed their addiction, or in any way violates the person or property of another, sure, lock em up. But someone who eats some ecstasy or snorts some cocaine before going to a party (as long as they aren't driving!) can just have at it, IMO. Aren't we in favor of small gov't, around here? Why can't we rely on churches and charities to help these sick individuals, instead of putting them into a prison system which is proven to turn them out even more dangerous than when they went in?
BTW, do you think we should outlaw alcohol? Look at what drunks do to their families. Should we ban Whiskey because some people will beat their own families senseless after downing a bottle? Remember how well that turned out!
Also consider that as long as these drugs are illegal, they will stay extremely profitable. For every dealer we throw in a cell, there is another one ready to take his place, to make that profit! No one does that over cigarettes, or alcohol . . . I wonder why? They are just as addictive, and just as dangerous, as many other drugs.
Are you familiar with the case of Portugal, which recently DECRIMINALIZED all hard drugs? CATO has some very interesting data on the results of that decision, which has been very popular in that country! http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/02/new-stu... has more information. Please check it out, before you decide we must keep locking up stoners!
"This is working exactly as I had planned!" Satan
I assume, then, that this article is the first in a series. The next will be an article condemning and calling for prohibition of alcohol. Then one detailing the evils of and need for prohibition of cigarettes. After that – I don't know, perhaps any food item with a high sugar content.
Are there any other substances the author thinks the government should be able to tell me I can and cannot use? I want to keep my list updated so that I'm sure not to violate the right of others to tell me what is and what is not acceptable. My list of PLANTS that the government thinks should be illegal to grow is pretty short – maybe we can add a few just to be safe – poison ivy? lilies? marigolds?
Let the arrows fly.
Anything that anti-American Soros is involved in must be viewed cautiously, perhaps he intends to get into the drug business? Sting! …who cares?
But. as a Conservative/libertarian with a small “L” I fall on the side of legalization. Regulate it as you do booze. What we’ve done for the past sixty-five years, and most especially since Nixon coined the phrase “The War on Drugs,” is create a self fulfilling industry (ala. Prohibition) with dozens of Al Capone’s, operating a multi-billion dollar Black Market that poisons the weak, with absolutely no end in sight – - I believe that fits nicely into the definition of insanity.
If you outlaw illegal drugs only outlaws will have illegal drugs….or sometjing like that? Pretty doggone profound of me to come up with a slogan like that..kewl, dude.
It's not that I don't feel the same way about drugs that you do, I just personally think it's a bit hypocritical of us to sit and talk about how much we want the Federal Government to stop controlling our lives and telling us what is best for us, then back them when they do so with drugs.
If a man wants to grow a plant in his yard and consume it while risking his health to do so, it is his right as an American IMO, it is our governments job to protect us from other people, not to protect us from ourselves, we can not regulate stupidity, and I'd much rather take some tax burdens from the rest of us to see our government legally control and tax drugs, it seriously would diminish both street violence and border violence, and pretty much killing smuggling across the border completely, plus it would bring a lot of revenue into this nation, and it would make drugs a lot safer in that they will be legally inspected for purity, so they are not cut with dangerous chemicals like most of the street drugs are to save money.
Again I despise drugs and nothing annoys me more than a pothead who feels like he constantly has to discuss it, but I'll damn sure stand up for his right to be stupid and harm himself if that's what he wishes.
i'm not libertarian enough to support legalization.
I am willing to consider pot.
but it is fun to see the users heads explode when trying to justify it
"but, dewd, the constitution is written on hemp, man"
i suppose our war on drugs is why there is all the killing going on in mexico? and where the taliban get all the money from, forcing farmers in afghanistan to grow poppies? i mean mexican drug lords, and the taliban are victims in this drug war. we should stop legal actions against these wonderful drugs, and just put murderers, and rapists away. it might just happen to be that lots of these murders in the inner cities might be drug related, but they are also innocent victims.
Ahhh Kurt I have missed you…well said.
I hate this because I DO like Stings music. I actually bought tickets to see him in concert next week…however if you keep publishing these things on the "BIG" sites I'll be forced to eat my $300 and stay home!!!
How about this compromise: Use any of these hard drugs such as coke, heroin, meth, etc (Not weed) and you lose out on ANY government paid for health care, and you can be dropped by your private insurer. And if you do cause an accident, or commit a violent crime, while on any of these drugs, you spend the rest of your life in solitary confinement, without drugs. Then legalize it.
I don't want my taxes to pay for a methhead's dentures, or a coke addict's heart attack.
As for weed? Think our kids are stupid now? Legalize it, and watch graduation rates plummet, even with standardize testing that allows 2 plus 2=5 as a valid answer.
If it was a true war on drugs, then the troops should be on the border, blowing up drug runners. I'd be all for that. Especially with the corresponding Apache helicopter gun camera footage!
And it is a bit hypocritical for all these liberal celebrities who call for government control on everything to push for the freedom to smoke anything you want. Of course they want a drugged up population who will vote Dem all the way.
Ya know if people want to use freedom as a reason to do drugs…whatever. But if we are going to play this game lets take it up a notch. When this problem reaches my doorstep, with violence, crime, drug pushers on my street corners, you can bet I will use my "civil rights" to clean up the mess with extreme prejudice.
except, our troops are prohibited from doing excercises on our land. but the dea, or some other agency could start doing that, we might even be able to make it into a cops type of reality show. but it would be nice to put troops on our border, then when mexico's military try to run cover for drug runners, they could use the target practice on the mexican military vehicles.
One need not travel to China to find indigenous cultures lacking human rights. America leads the world in percentile behind bars, thanks to the ongoing open season on hippies, commies, and non-whites in the war on drugs. Cops get good performance reviews for shooting fish in a barrel. If we’re all about spreading liberty abroad, then why mix the message at home? Peace on the home front would enhance global credibility.
The drug czar’s Rx for prison fodder costs dearly, as lives are flushed down expensive tubes. My shaman’s second opinion is that psychoactive plants are God’s gift. Behold, it’s all good. When Eve ate the apple, she knew a good apple, and an evil prohibition. Canadian Marc Emery is being extradited to prison for helping American farmers reduce U. S. demand for Mexican pot.
The CSA (Controlled Substances Act of 1970) reincarnates Al Capone, endangers homeland security, and throws good money after bad. Fiscal policy burns tax dollars to root out the number-one cash crop in the land, instead of taxing sales. Society rejected the plague of prohibition, but it mutated. Apparently, SWAT teams don’t need no stinking amendment.
Nixon passed the CSA on the false assurance that the Schafer Commission would later justify criminalizing his enemies, but he underestimated Schafer’s integrity. No amendments can assure due process under an anti-science law without due process itself. Psychology hailed the breakthrough potential of LSD, until the CSA shut down research, and pronounced that marijuana has no medical use. Former U.K. chief drugs advisor Prof. Nutt was sacked for revealing that non-smoked cannabis intake is scientifically healthy.
The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) allows Native American Church members to eat peyote, which functions like LSD. Americans shouldn’t need a specific church membership or an act of Congress to obtain their birthright freedom of religion. God’s children’s free exercise of religious liberty may include entheogen sacraments to mediate communion with their maker.
Freedom of speech presupposes freedom of thought. The Constitution doesn’t enumerate any governmental power to embargo diverse states of mind. How and when did government usurp this power to coerce conformity? The Mayflower sailed to escape coerced conformity. Legislators who would limit cognitive liberty lack jurisdiction.
Common-law holds that adults are the legal owners of their own bodies. The Founding Fathers undersigned that the right to the pursuit of happiness is inalienable. Socrates said to know your self. Mortal lawmakers should not presume to thwart the intelligent design that molecular keys unlock spiritual doors. Persons who appreciate their own free choice of path in life should tolerate seekers’ self-exploration. Liberty is prerequisite for tracking drug-use intentions and outcomes.
1.) I remember a story that a friend of mine told me (Yahoo! News), Yahoo! told me about a couple of internet addicts who let their child starve to death while on the internet. After that story I think we should outlaw the internet. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100528/ap_on_hi_te/a...
2.) We cant' keep drugs out of Prisons. Buildings where people don't have rights to privacy and property, but we think its realistic to keep drugs out of a free society.
3.) The drug prohibition is no different than alcohol during the 1920's, people who want alcohol or drugs are going to get it either way, the side effects of making the activities illegal are crime rings, drug lords (Capone, Escobar, etc) , and violence.
4.) After decades and hundreds of Billions of dollars, the level of drug use pretty much remains the same.
conservatives are like liberals when it comes to the war on drugs; facts and results don't matter, its the intent that matters.
No arrows from me, I think you have a legitimate point.
"conservatives are like liberals when it comes to the war on drugs; facts and results don't matter, its the intent that matters."
This is a pretty accurate statement. Take the emotion out of it and just look at the facts. Numbers don't lie.
This looks to be an effort to sow dissention in the Libertarian ranks. Classic divide and conquer.
So if I want to shoot or inhale some drug you don't like, you're right to fdecide what I do with my body and forcibly stop me would dervive from . . .what? The Word of Yahweh or something equally rational?
And how, by the way, do some people get the moral right to have power over other people? If some are going to be hammers (the coercers) and some anvils (the coercees), surely most people will want to get into the hammer faction, so they can tell the anvils how to live their lives and compel them to obey. How, for example, did Mr. Schlichter get into the hammer group? Did he send in a coupon or something?
Ignore for the moment the douche baggery of Sting and Soros, and think. Just how well has the war on drugs worked? How much return on investment of the trillions spent since the Nixon administration?
The war on alcohol – prohibition? Beer won.
War on poverty – the welfare state? Poverty won.
War on drugs? Guess who's winning?
You've said it all, can't add a thing to it. Right on Mrs. Toon.
I agree, the difference between Libertarianism and Liberalism is that Libertarians allow personal freedom coupled with personal responsibility.
If you want to do drugs, and you aren't violating the rights of anyone else, who's business is it other than your own? If you leave your kids home alone, mug someone for drug money, or kill someone behind the wheel while stoned out of your mind … you should be locked up.
The crime is the PERSON, not the object. It seems that many conservatives have the same stance on drugs that liberals have on guns. Punish people who MISUSE, not everyone. Isn't this kind of "they're too stupid to make their own decisions" attitude what we're against?
In NY City Bloomberg is determined to win the war on trans fat and the war on salt.
It's time to stop politicians from telling We The People what we can and can not do. Because reality shows, people are going to do what they want, regardless of the laws put in place.
That's why the constitution was put into place, to prevent politicians from being able to decide what's best for us.
Notice the arguements that the right uses to keep drugs banned are the same arguements the left uses to ban guns?
In both cases, the answer is responsible use, and to punish PEOPLE who abuse the object, not simply outlaw the object and punish responsible people.
On who's part? Sting & Soros or the author?
Excellent point.
But of course I expect little more from hypocrites like Sting and Soros. Their entering into the debate on the subject actually detracts from it.
Several original copies were. And both Washington and Jefferson, farmers, grew it. So did my father in law on his farm, by federal order during WWII. They used it for parachute chords.
If you don't support legalization, tell me why you support criminalization?
I've seen him twice, once with the Police and once warming up for the Grateful Dead.
The Police were much better.
Personal freedom MUST be coupled with personal responsibility. You can't give the people the freedom to destroy their lives AND then have massive government programs available to "help" when people suffer the consequences of their own decisions.
That's the difference between Libertarianism and Liberalism. Libertarians want freedom, but Liberals want freedom AND bailouts for stupudity.
FUNNY, they want us to have freedom to do drugs, but the same people tell us we can't have a Super Size Big Mac meal. Ironic.
I'm certainly no fan of Soros, and Sting's music is good as long as I don't have to think about his personality or politics, but the author is presenting quite a vitriolic one-sided attack. Besides overlooking the collateral damage of the drug war, the author is representative of the many who overlook the complete failure of it as well.
Law enforcement is simply picking the low hanging fruit. It isn't enough. When there is a big bust of thousands of pounds of this or that, it doesn't affect the price of drugs nationally . What's that tell any economically literate person? That law enforcement isn't making any kind of significant progress, and that they just are raising the price of doing business by 5% at best. My God, legitimate businesses have to pay taxes that are much much higher than that and still manage to survive. Law enforcement is catching the 'bad" guys? Some, maybe, but they are catching the ones who are less competent, less well-funded, and are merely thinning the herd and making an environment for a sick evolution of survival of the most ruthless,best organized, most well-connected and able to corrupt politicians (and law enforcement) etc. .
It's not as though anyone can't get and use and abuse drugs now. The author cites quite a few high profile victims of drug use. Fair enough. But did the "drug war" help these folks?
The question remains, because of the illegality of these substances how much does this discourage and prevent drug use? I say not much. Then you look at the costs and the collateral damage to our society and our freedoms and you see a huge deficit. I'd rather have a few more drug-addled junkies roaming the streets in exchange for disempowering gangs, thugs, subverted countries, corrupted law enforcement and politicians, tunnels under our border, submarines that can also be used to smuggle WMD into our country.
On balance, citing the "scourge" of drugs is becoming an empty argument.
The fact that you stated in your first sentence that Communists are victims of human rights violations in the United States proves you are historically ignorant on a tragically massive scale.
Making hemp illegal shows the level of paranoia and ignorance when it comes to our drug laws. You can't get high from hemp, but since the plant is related to and looks somewhat similar to marijuana everyone freaks out over it and it is illegal.
Legalizing the growing of hemp would be a great for the environment, economy and farmers. Canada legalized it over a decade ago for these reasons.
For the record I don't smoke pot.
You're right, just take the liberal arguement against gun ownership, and replace the word "gun" with "drugs" and you have the conservative argument against drug use.
there are many points of discussion on this issue and I am not all that well versed in it. It is a topic that doesn't interest me all that much.
But, i am willing to consider the arguments for legalizing pot. Most of not all others others however, i am not willng to entertain.
Do I think it is stupid to lock up users and addicts, yes. The dealers, manufacturers and smugglers should be the ones we focus on.
I just can't go full libertarian on this.
i dont either
it is funny though to hear the legalize-it arguments couched in Hemp. since they are not the same it seems stupid to ban it and to argue for pot legalization based on it as well
Kurt Schlichter, it's obviously you yourself who's been "smoking the wrong stuff"; Prohibition is a sickening horror and the ocean of incompetence, corruption and human wreckage it has left in its wake is almost endless.
Prohibition has decimated generations and criminalized millions for a behavior which is entwined in human existence, and for what other purpose than to uphold the defunct and corrupt thinking of a minority of misguided, self-righteous Neo-Puritans and degenerate demagogues like yourself who wish nothing but unadulterated destruction on the rest of us.
Based on the unalterable proviso that drug use is essentially an unstoppable and ongoing human behavior which has been with us since the dawn of time, any serious reading on the subject of past attempts at any form of drug prohibition would point most normal thinking people in the direction of sensible regulation.
By its very nature, prohibition cannot fail but create a vast increase in criminal activity, and rather than preventing society from descending into anarchy, it actually fosters an anarchic business model – the international Drug Trade. Any decisions concerning quality, quantity, distribution and availability are then left in the hands of unregulated, anonymous and ruthless drug dealers, who are interested only in the huge profits involved. Thus, the allure of this reliably and lucrative industry, with it's enormous income potential that consistently outweighs the risks associated with the illegal operations that such a trade entails, will remain with us until we are collectively forced to admit the obvious.
A great many of us are slowly but surely wising up to the fact that the best avenue towards realistically dealing with drug use and addiction is through proper regulation which is what we already do with alcohol & tobacco, clearly two of our most dangerous mood altering substances. But for those of you whose ignorant and irrational minds traverse a fantasy plane of existence, you will no doubt remain sorely upset with any type of solution that does not seem to lead to YOUR absurd and unattainable utopia of a drug free society.
There is therefore an irrefutable connection between drug prohibition and the crime, corruption, disease and death it causes. Anybody 'halfway bright', and who's not psychologically challenged, should be capable of understanding that it is not simply the demand for drugs that creates the mayhem, it is our refusal to allow legal businesses to meet that demand. If you are not capable of understanding this connection then maybe you're not only "smoking the wrong stuff" but are obviously using something far stronger than the rest of us. So put away your pipe now please Kurt, lock yourself away in a small room with some tinned soup and water, and try to crawl back into reality A.S.A.P.
Well, everything seemed to work pretty good before the federal government got involved and started criminalizing everything. This is all fairly recently, only in the last 80 – 90 years. Before then, no regulation, and no major drug problems.
Since then we've spent trillions, imprisoned hundreds of thousands, all we've really accomplished is making it more dangerous and more profitable.
Didn't America already learn this lesson with prohibition of alcohol?
I'm not suggesting trying something totally new and off the wall. I'm suggesting the war on drugs failed to solve a problem that did not exist. So why keep doing it?
Soros and Sting of course. The author, if quilty of anything, is just an expected reaction.
Sorry, but if you claim to believe in limited government, the "War on Drugs" should be one of the first items on your list of things in need of elimination. Vice laws (and that's what drug prohibition laws are) are counter to the idea of personal liberty, especially at the federal level. Moreover, they simply don't work. They only serve to increase rampant violence since that's what always arises any time there's a black market.
Why do you think the Prohibition era was so violent? It wasn't because of violent movies or video games or rap music, and it wasn't because of people in alcohol-fueled stupors shooting each other up. It was because of the black market created by the government's ban on alcohol. The ban on drugs is no different.
When something is banned by the government, its price is automatically going to skyrocket. It's simple economics, and the more lucrative a business is, the more likely unsavory types will want a piece of it. It will also attract poor people who see a way to make a quick buck. You can see the consequences of prohibition by looking to our southern border or visiting one of our inner cities.
I'm not a heartless bastard, and I do feel for the kids who get caught up in the drug world when their parents use or sell. But I'm also a realist, and my brains tell me that most of the problems currently associated with drugs would vanish if a black market didn't exist. A free market will always be safer and better than a black market. Confronting a problem based on feelings and best intentions is something we need to leave to the liberals. The drug war has failed completely, and there's no sense in continuing based solely on the notion that "drugs are bad."
Okay, in that case I agree with you. Sting isn't that bright, but Soros is.
Well put, I'll be stealing that from you in future debates…LOL
I agree with most of what you say, except the last part. When drug laws are relaxed there is an initial spike in use, but within a couple of years, it actually goes down. I read about an extensive study in Portugal where they greatly relaxed the drug laws because they just couldn't afford their war on drugs.
Remember, Americans are a stubborn breed. We're apt to do something if for no other reason some tells us we can't do it. Remove that from the equation.
Substitute the word "alcohol" for any of the drugs in your rant and see if the argument still holds up.
If Drugs are an evil so great that they should be withheld from free people, then what the hell is Leftism? Many millions more have been killed by Leftists than have ever been killed by Drugs.
You know what? The only reason it is a problem is because its illegal. Take that away, the profit margins sink to the cellar, no incentive for drug pushers or violence.
Drugs have been around for ever. We never had a problem till the federal government declared we had a problem, and set about to spend trillions of our money to solve it. All they accomplished was to create what did not exist.
The federal government created the drug problem. And look how much money they make off it…..
The question should really be this: If you don't support legalization, tell me why you support criminalization at the federal level?
There's nothing in the constitution that grants the federal government any authority over drugs. Nothing. And if folks bring up the Commerce Clause, I'll reach through the internet and cyber-slap them.
The one hole in your argument is that owning a gun will not make a person a burden to society. Being addicted to guns (if there is such a thing) does not result in the need for federal assistance, rehab, etc. to live. When was the last time you saw a homeless guy with a sign "addicted to guns, please help"? I have met many responsible gun owners, I have never met responsible consistant drug users.
Again, if you want to make it legal, fine, but don't try to get people to accept drug use as normal behavior that has no bad consequences. Make drugs legal, but if you do you have to remove the safety nets (that tax-payers pay for) that minimize the "unintended" consequences for the behavior. You cannot just "free-up" one side. If you do the rest of us will be put in heavier chains to pay for this particular "freedom".
Sometimes there is method to madness:
Drug’em up and keep’em ignorant, and then manipulate the heck out of them.
Agreed, except I don't get the part about Eve and the apple. That's got nothing to do with prohibition, it has to do with explaining human nature's inability to see when they have a good thing going, and screw it up.
But over all, yes, the US did not have a drug problem until the federal government decided we had a drug problem and set about solving it.
The only thing they accomplished was to create the very problem they set out to solve.
I agree that the "safety nets" would need to be removed before drugs become fully legal. Much like corporate welfare, you can't give people permission to make bad choices, and then bail them out when you do with other people's money.
The message should be that you're an adult, and if you want to destroy your life, go nuts. Make sure you don't infringe on the rights of others and we'll leave you alone. However, nobody is going to catch you when you fall, or "save" you with other people's money.
You make a valid point. If someone can't control their behavior when it comes to substance use then it's no one's fault but their own, right? Doesn't that blow the belief that alcoholism is hereditary? And if that is no longer valid, should the funding be cut for people in rehab for booze?
Legalize all of it you will break the back of cartels, reduce the population of the jails, find a brand new revenue stream for taxation. Dispense it as Alcohol is dispensed tax it as such quality control would be much higher then it is today. People whom are prone to addiction are either already addicted or in recovery same as alcohol by reducing prison populations taxes are saved cartels going bankrupt police lives are saved and policing costs reduced.
I'm big C, small L, as well.
Correction: Liberals only want some freedom. They don't believe in economic liberty, and they don't believe we have a right to defend ourselves with a firearm.
Agreed. I can't see why conservatives would even support it. The war on drugs is unconstitutional.
That puzzles me about conservatives. Why do they get to pick and choose which issues they are conservative on?
"And look how much money they make off it….."
And that's why it's probably not going anywhere. People could completely stop using drugs tomorrow, all the violence could evaporate, but the government would still give us a long list of reasons why the bureaucracy needs to continue to exist. In the end, that's what all bureaucracies do—search for ways to justify their existence.
Let the march of the Libertarians begin! All we will hear now are how our Founding Fathers intended for all drugs to be legal so that we could all enjoy our own licentious behavior. Never mind the fact that the Founding Fathers drew a clear distinction between liberty – the ability to do what is right – and licentiousness – the freedom to do whatever you wanted. Personal liberty my arse. You tell that four year old that drugs are a victimless crime. I worked in the innercity for five years, anyone that believes that pap is an idiot.
On the political side, Soros may be playing to divide the Libertarians and the Social Conservatives. I wonder how many Libertarins will openly embrace Uncle Soros to advance their social agenda?
Funding should be cut for just about everything, though—right? There was all kinds of addiction during the 1800s, from alcohol to pain killers, and I'm pretty sure the federal government didn't fret about how much funding to give to rehab places.
Charity is always a better answer than government intervention.
The reason to bring hemp into the debate is beautifully highlights the insanity of America's drug war.
Once the federal government seizes the authority to regulate anything, they never stop. It only grows worse and worse.
Mayor Bloomberg has already banned trans fat in NY restaurants, and is working on salt. Trust me, its only a matter of time till they get around to something you enjoy that you consider benign.
Politicians get elected by promising to solve problems. So there will never be an end to the number of problems they demand to solve. Sooner or later they will decide the problem is you.
Why would we legalize weed for kids? We don't allow them to use alcohol. Why would we ever allow them to use drugs?
Then lets get to work on turning that into a big L and a small C.
Actually a big L would indicate a big C.
Actually I believe cutting of federal social programs (and federal bailouts too) would solve a lot of problems…illigal immigration, bankrupt cities and states, etc. Return "social" programs back to the society and not the state, and you would see a reduction in a lot a of "bad behaviors" either from a lot a stupid people.
But too, when you say the numbers don't lie, that's debatable. Most places that have had a free for all with drugs and "vice" crime (Alaska and Amsterdam come to mind) always end up clamping down on them again sooner or later. No productive members of society want to live in a place where a meth-head-male-prostitutes can accost their child on the street legally.
Liberals traditionally believe in social freedom and are opposed to economic freedom. Take the Nolan Chart test, and you'll understand. http://www.nolanchart.com/
Alright, we get it. You don't like Sting's music or Montel's earrings, but are you so oblivious to the problems of drugs in the US to let those superficial prejudices cloud your rational mind from giving full thought to this debate?
The fact is, the war on drugs has cost American taxpayers over a trillion dollars with little to show for it. Hard drugs have gotten cheaper and more dangerous. Marijuana use is widespread of course, but the result of this practically unenforceable law is the incentive for police forces in our major cities to round up poor Black and Latinos, mainly males because its worth the overtime. Whites use drugs, especially marijuana in frequency equal to that of minorities, yet those minorities account for an overwhelming majority of those arrested for marijuana possession.
Banning things that people want is a stupid policy because it invents criminals and makes them filthy rich. The increase in crime within the inner-cities of the US drives away real opportunities for those struggling to get out of poverty while the only real economic option is to join the growing drug trade.
It's great that you can make some funny jokes by tearing down celebrities that have put themselves out there for a cause most rational Americans agree with but don't forget that you are defending a system that creates the problems we are attempting to solve.
Prohibition harms society MUCH more than the drugs it claims to save us from.
If anyone wants to see the actual video, it can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0A1XTlJAio
Many conservatives will counter that they simply wish to conserve "a way of life," often rooted in personal morality, and that restricting the size and scope of the government is merely one facet of modern conservatism. When more government can (in their minds) help in promoting their preferred way of life, they have no problem going along with that idea that government interventionism is a good thing.
More often, though, I see it this way. Liberals screw things up, and conservatives work to conserve the status quo. Liberals gave us the drug war, and conservatives fight to keep it going even though it's a bad idea.
As long as you don't infringe on the rights of others, your personal behavior is your business and nobody else's.
However (and this is where Liberals and Libertarians part ways), YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS. Don't ask others to pick up the tab for your bad decisions. We can't have a system that allows for free drug use AND a socialized healthcare and social welfare programs to constantly bail out individuals who make bad choices. It doesn't work whether it's AIG or Leroy the Crackhead.
True
But Hemp is not pot. And brining it into drug legalization discussions
doesn't make a lot of sense
It is the same as talking about florists poppies and opium. I'm not
going to give a boquet of opium for mothers day. The same as I'm not
going to use some mj to tie down cargo in my truck bed.
Exactly. Last month there was a kerfuffle when the local sheriff used confiscated drug money (which is a racket all on its own*), to buy and distribute about 3,000 folding camp chairs with his name and the dept. logo on them. I'm sure his pending reelection had nothing to do with that decision.
* The laws for confiscating alleged drug profits is so obscene it should horrify every American. If you are pulled over for what ever reason, and the police suspect drug involvement, even if they lack any shred of evidence, they can seizes your property on the basis that at some future point, it may be used in a drug sale.
You have to go through the effort and costs of proving that your property was not going to be used for drugs. In drug confiscation cases, you are guilty till proven innocent. And that's as unAmerican as it gets.
Obama's war on business is going pretty well though. I think the failure of these "wars" has a lot to do with the fact that poor people who use alcohol and drugs vote for democrats.
I'm about at the top of the chart.
Government safety nets often encourage bad behavior in folks who are predisposed to being irresponsible. If we want a more responsible society, the answer is to let people be more responsible for the consequences of their bad behavior.
We already have laws against child endangerment and neglect, and rightfully so. Why ban something just because it might lead to something bad? That's a really dumb power to grant any government. I hate to be the guy to bring Hitler into this discussion, but "OMG whataboutthechildren!?!" can be used by the government to justify almost anything.
"The State must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."—Mein Kampf
But maybe Hitler was just about going after licentiousness…
Thanks for that thoughtful analysis. I went from modern liberalism to what I was accused of being a neo-con, and I finally realized I was really a libertarian all along.
So I'm still learning about conservatives, one tenant of the left is never listen to the enemy, so I have to learn all this stuff. I had the feeling that was what I was seeing, but was hoping otherwise.
I'll reiterate EdSki's point
The violence is a result of making the drugs illegal, not a result of the drugs. Just as making alcohol illegal created violence and gangs, so does drugs. Alcohol is now legal and criminals and violence no longer surround it. The same thing would happen if we legalized drugs (especially marijuana).
We can't have a system that allows for free drug use AND a socialized healthcare and social welfare programs to constantly bail out individuals who make bad choices. " Agreed. Get rid of the latter and let the former go on freely. Overdose away , idiots! "Think of it as evolution in action."
Okay, then how about incandescent light bulbs. They're going away because the federal government has decreed we're too stupid to switch to CFC bulbs.
The point is not the substance itself, for me the point is the federal government over stepping their authority. It is extremely dangerous, and should be confronted on every front.
Every time the government bans something they have take away your freedom to choose. The only way that will stop is if we fight back every single time, because they will never stop on their own.
This fight is not about getting high, this fight is about freedom vs. tyranny. Our liberty is at stake. And we are losing this fight big time.
There isn't much the government can do well especially with tax money. Social programs are the tip of that spear.
Many people up and down the economic ladder use alcohol and drugs. Always have and always will.
The reason these wars have all failed, in my opinion, is because there is a direct conflict between human nature's desire to control everything, while simultaneously refusing to be controlled.
We insist we be allowed to do what we want, while telling others what they can't do. It's illogical. But we keep doing it anyway.
A choice has to be made by each and every human. Either we grant the same freedom we demand for ourselves to every one else, or we agree to submit to government control, by the dictates of others.
I vote for freedom.
And that means if some random Joe wants to kick back with a joint on the weekend, then he should be able to do it.
I've always wanted a free camp chair funded with confiscated drug money. Maybe I should move to your area.
More to your point, though, I grew up near a guy who was in charge of the police drug squad. Everyone knew he didn't make all that much money (not a real big town), but he always managed to have a new car and a new boat every year or so.
Hmmm…
That. Article. Was. Awesome.
You obviously miss the point Kipling, from a philosophical point and a practical point the war on drugs is a loser. It is a failed policy, the result of the policy is more crime, more inmates, Billions of dollars thrown away, for what? drug use has not gone down.
Just as alcohol prohibition was a loser, so is drug prohibition.
No body said anything about giving it kids. It's my job to make sure my daughter doesn't have access to alcohol or drugs.
And I do my job.
Wow! I haven’t had so many people mad at me in the comments since I pointed out how stupid birtherism is. Since this really wasn’t a piece on how I feel about drug legalization but about how celebrities descend from their personal Olympuses to pontificate to us mere mortals and then ascend back into the heavens to let us del with the resulting mess, I will break my standard rule of letting my columns speak for themselves, since this one does not directly discuss my feelings about drug criminalization.
Most of the fulminating commenters overlook – completely – my positive references to the conservative and libertarian critiques of drug policy exemplified by National Review and Reason. They also fail to point out how I mentioned that it was difficult me to get worked up about dope -moking stoners. Not a word appears in the column supporting long-term imprisonment of mere addicts. Finally, they fail to note that the harshness in my column is reserved solely for drug dealers. So, to the extent they are seeking some absolute Wahabi prohibitionist, that’s a strawman. Or, for my activist friends, perhaps I should say a hempman. (Part II to Follow)
Good to see you again. We already know each others positions on these issues so no use going down that whole route again. Therefore, I will limit my comments to your post.
First, why is it always an all or nothing approach with most libertarians. By your own example it is either no drug laws or Hitler / Nazi Germany. Is there not a place between the two extremes? Just because Hitler used the children as an excuse, does it mean the children are the problem.
Second, "why ban something just because it might lead to something bad?" You already conceded the point by acknowledging the existence "and rightfully so" of child endangerment laws. Child endangerment laws are based on the premise that something bad might have happened not that it did happen.
Third, the Hitler comment only warns of the danger of demagoguery. What you are trying to do here is to invoke quilt by association. Hitler demagoguery on children therefore anyone who advocates for the children must be Hitler. Such rhetoric is a cheap parlor trick at best.
Reason magazine has been running a series of articles on these horrific laws. It's just obscene what the government is doing. A DA office in Texas spent the money on a margarita machine. Another office took the entire staff to Hawaii for a vacation. It's free money to them, with little restrictions on its use. So the police have no incentive to stop it.
In Texas a high patrol guy held the record for confiscating drug money. Finally he snapped and went public because he couldn't live with himself any more. He blew the whistle on how 90% of his units busts were set ups for the sole purpose of getting money. Now he sells a series of DVD classes on how to avoid getting set up by the police.
The real victims are those who get their property confiscated. In a majority of cases, it would cost more in legal fees than the property is worth, so they don't even try.
One case in particular, a guy had like $10,000 in cash to buy a car in another state. He was getting a ride from some one, they got pulled over, the police found an old roach clip in the car so the took all his money. He fought the case, won, but the police still refuse to return it.
The biggest problem with the legalization argument is its habitual total avoidance, except for some rote nods to the obvious, of the disastrous consequences of drug use on society. In the place of confronting the reality of the damage drug abuse does to individuals, families and to our society, we get clichés about personal liberty. I frankly find many of those clichés very compelling, but a real discussion of drug law reform requires more than just repeating the very powerful and true mantra that the government presumptively has no business telling any of us what we can put in our bodies.
We need to decide whether we want to live in a society where people can walk into the smack shop and shoot up on the sidewalk. The fact is, legalizing drugs would result in a significant portion of our population simply seceding from productive society and choosing to live in a drug-fueled haze (as a smaller group does even now). Sure, it’s their lives, but the rest of us will get handed the bill. (Part III to Follow)
Whether it’s in having to deal with more losers on the street as we go about our business, or in having to pick up the tab for them when their battered bodies finally conk out (I doubt most of the big talkers out there would be willing to let the addicts die without the medical care the addicts won’t be able to afford), we’d end up subsidizing their “choice.” The notion that the scumbag drug dealers would simply go legit when their drug money dries up post-legalization (Forgetting that the kiddie market would still be there – unless the legalizers support allowing 12 year olds to score too) is ridiculous. I note none of the commenters even addressed that point from my piece. I could point out how the Mafia disappeared completely after Prohibition was repealed, except it didn’t – they just moved into other criminal endeavors and continued to grow. Drug dealers did not become criminals because drugs are illegal; they were criminals who came to drugs because drugs are easy money. And if drugs stop being easy money, they’ll do some other kind of crime – perhaps one that affects the rest of us even more directly. (Part IV to Follow)
Also, I note that George Soros, an intelligent, even cunning man, strongly supports drug legalization. To me, this is powerful evidence against it. When, how and in what form has Soros ever advocated any policy that would make America a stronger, better nation?
In short, the legalization side has powerful arguments, but totally fails to confront the totality of the issue, often preferring libertarian posturing to a total analysis of the consequences. Getting on your high horse about how only you truly care for personal liberty is not only nonsense but annoying – I wear dispositive documentation of my personal commitment to human freedom on the left breast of my dress uniform, mac. And mischaracterizing counterarguments – who says they want “a drug free utopia,” as if the criminalization argument isn’t just to try and control drug abuse? – is counterproductive.
So, in short, I’m willing to have the discussion – but a full and complete discussion, not just volleys of clichés that shed no light on the issue. And, finally, Sting still sucks.
i'm just saying hemp and pot legalization are 2 seperate issues.
i acknowledge a lack of personal freedom in my stance, but I'm too socially conservative to make that leap. I believe there is benefit do regulating drugs.
There is benefit in regulating certain chemicals too, and expolsives and prescriptions.
if you want to regulate narcotics in the same way as alcohol or explosives or prescriptions, I can get behind that. but the argument seems to be all or nothing. Since I can not go all in, I'm left with allowing nothing.
Sorry if we jumped on the wrong point of your article. For a lot of people the war of drug exemplifies many of the problems with our government, so it sets us off.
And yes birtherism is stupid.
Me too, but a little to the right. Who knew?! :p
Phiolosophical points are worth about as much as you pay for free advice. To prove your point, you need to demonstrate that the alternative – legalization of all drugs – will result in less crime, a smaller prison population, and be more cost efficient. You will also need to take into account the larger societal costs brought on by legalization as well as the crimes committed to support the drug habit. As a libertarian or conservative, you will also have to show that government will not increase due to drug legalization, which many argue will need government regulation, policing, etc.
I freely admit that the war on drugs has problems. The first problem is that has never been faught as a true war. As the post points out, drug dealers are not treated as the enemy or even as prisoners of war. If as a society we do not want to fight it as a war then do not call it a war. When the cost of the crime outweighs the gain, crime rates go down.
(Part IV) Also, I note that George Soros, an intelligent, even cunning man, strongly supports drug legalization. To me, this is powerful evidence against it. When, how and in what form has Soros ever advocated any policy that would make America a stronger, better nation?
In short, the legalization side has powerful arguments, but totally fails to confront the totality of the issue, often preferring libertarian posturing to a total analysis of the consequences. Getting on your high horse about how only you truly care for personal liberty is not only nonsense but annoying – I wear dispositive documentation of my personal commitment to human freedom on the left breast of my dress uniform, mac. And mischaracterizing counterarguments – who says they want “a drug free utopia,” as if the criminalization argument isn’t just to try and control drug abuse? – is counterproductive.
So, in short, I’m willing to have the discussion – but a full and complete discussion, not just volleys of clichés that shed no light on the issue. And, finally, Sting still sucks.
No one is talking about complete anarchy here. Even the most ardent second amendment supporters I know, there is no problem with reasonable restrictions. No one in their right mind wants a paroled Charles Manson to be able to stroll into Wally's World of Arms and load up with RPGs.
You say you are a conservative. Then how about the conservative ideal of rolling back illegal government regulation, and go back to the nice, calm, quiet old days?
Here is a problem with the legalization of drugs. Drug legalization, as you note, will lead to a certain percentage of people dropping out of productive society. Now, assuming that legal drugs will still cost at least some money, how will these non-productive members of society pay for their drugs? Will it not lead to more crime to pay for a legal habit?
I knew from the start that you had opened a can of worms on this one. I am glad you are not a bomb thrower who throws his bomb and then runs and hides.
I have to agree with you there. Let them have all the drugs they want and maybe we'd have a few less druggies running around!
I've always been against drugs, ie., keeping them illegal, but this discussion is making me rethink all that. Hmmm….
You must be logged in to post a comment.