T
The420Guy
Guest
As most of you know, I am a very active member of the Republican party. No one agrees with his or her party platform 100 percent, and that is fine. Political parties are simply a way for different groups of people who share many ( but not all ) of the same beliefs and values to try to get most of their preferred policies enacted. I personally have several problems with the platform of the overall Republican party. One of the most significant differences is over the war on drugs.
For several years now, I have been confused by Republican support for the drug war. It seems to contradict a host of Republican principles. The support for drug prohibition has only been getting stronger. More and more it seems that cigarettes will be added to that list before too long, even if politicians simply tax them out of legal markets and into the black market ( which is already beginning ). Let's take a look at some of the rather serious contradictions the war on drugs creates for its Republican supporters.
First, we Republicans are adamant defenders of the Constitution to the point of striving to appoint and elect judges who will respect that document. Yet the war on drugs makes a mockery of many of our constitutionally protected rights. Current forfeiture laws encourage law enforcement agencies to violate individuals' rights with trumped-up charges in order to confiscate their property. There is clearly a perverse incentive at work here. The system is designed so that it is in the police's interest to confiscate property of suspected drug dealers. Often, the person is innocent, and no charges are ever pressed, but the property is not returned. Bruce Benson and David Rasmussen recount the story of the sheriff of Volusia County, Fla., who did just that between 1989 and 1992, racking up $8 million, most of which was never returned to the innocent people from whom it was taken. The drug war has become an easy way for police departments that are strapped for cash to find quick funding. Republicans would oppose this in any other situation.
Second, we believe in less government control over our lives and less government power. I imagine few ( if any ) Republicans would suggest we go back to the prohibition of alcohol, a substance much more dangerous to its users and those around them than many illegal drugs. We see alcohol prohibition as a major encroachment of the government into our lives. Why should drugs be any different? Just look at the massive amounts of tax money, bureaucracy and federal and state law enforcement personnel devoted to trying to halt the flow of illegal drugs. We even retask military units to help other countries fight an endless supply of paramilitary drug lords. For a party that believes the military should only be used to defend America from attack by a foreign country, Republicans have some explaining to do.
Third, we appreciate and support police officers, but the war on drugs makes their jobs much harder and more dangerous than they need to be. Before the war on drugs spawned well-armed, well-funded and incredibly violent street gangs, life was much quieter, and the most cops had to worry about were minor disturbances, the occasional burglary or mugging, etc. Now we have paramilitary S.W.A.T. units and more highly armed street cops to counter the firepower of the drug gangs. Not only does this drug prohibition policy put officers' lives in great danger, it also costs us a higher amount of tax money to provide them with the means of defending themselves. If these drugs were not illegal, the monetary incentive that keeps these traffickers going would evaporate. We do not see gangs organized around a black market beer and cigarettes trade, do we? If Republicans really want to help cops, we should demand that drugs be legalized and treated like alcohol and tobacco.
A final point I would like to stress ( although there are many more ) is that we Republicans are always looking for ways to get people out of the welfare system and allow them the opportunity to better themselves and their neighborhoods. However, the war on drugs is actually serving to prevent such improvement. My mother, a public school teacher in downtown Durham, sees firsthand the way promising children from poor families are sucked into the criminal world and put on a path to death, prison or worse. On the one hand, they see at least 12 years of hard work in the school system to hopefully have a chance to get a job or go to college and make something of themselves. On the other hand, they see neighborhood teenagers hanging out on the streets with gold chains and fancy clothes and cruising in $80,000 gold-rimmed cars. For many of them, the choice is sadly all too clear.
One part of The Republican Oath states, "I believe we must retain those principles worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideas with an outlook broad enough to accommodate thoughtful change and varying points of view." I think it is time the Republican Party took this statement to heart and realized that the war on drugs is not one of those "principles worth retaining."
Pubdate: Wed, 06 Nov 2002
Source: Technician, The (NC State University)
Copyright: 2002 The Technician
Contact: opinion@technicianstaff.com
Website: technicianonline.com | The student newspaper of North Carolina State University since 1920
For several years now, I have been confused by Republican support for the drug war. It seems to contradict a host of Republican principles. The support for drug prohibition has only been getting stronger. More and more it seems that cigarettes will be added to that list before too long, even if politicians simply tax them out of legal markets and into the black market ( which is already beginning ). Let's take a look at some of the rather serious contradictions the war on drugs creates for its Republican supporters.
First, we Republicans are adamant defenders of the Constitution to the point of striving to appoint and elect judges who will respect that document. Yet the war on drugs makes a mockery of many of our constitutionally protected rights. Current forfeiture laws encourage law enforcement agencies to violate individuals' rights with trumped-up charges in order to confiscate their property. There is clearly a perverse incentive at work here. The system is designed so that it is in the police's interest to confiscate property of suspected drug dealers. Often, the person is innocent, and no charges are ever pressed, but the property is not returned. Bruce Benson and David Rasmussen recount the story of the sheriff of Volusia County, Fla., who did just that between 1989 and 1992, racking up $8 million, most of which was never returned to the innocent people from whom it was taken. The drug war has become an easy way for police departments that are strapped for cash to find quick funding. Republicans would oppose this in any other situation.
Second, we believe in less government control over our lives and less government power. I imagine few ( if any ) Republicans would suggest we go back to the prohibition of alcohol, a substance much more dangerous to its users and those around them than many illegal drugs. We see alcohol prohibition as a major encroachment of the government into our lives. Why should drugs be any different? Just look at the massive amounts of tax money, bureaucracy and federal and state law enforcement personnel devoted to trying to halt the flow of illegal drugs. We even retask military units to help other countries fight an endless supply of paramilitary drug lords. For a party that believes the military should only be used to defend America from attack by a foreign country, Republicans have some explaining to do.
Third, we appreciate and support police officers, but the war on drugs makes their jobs much harder and more dangerous than they need to be. Before the war on drugs spawned well-armed, well-funded and incredibly violent street gangs, life was much quieter, and the most cops had to worry about were minor disturbances, the occasional burglary or mugging, etc. Now we have paramilitary S.W.A.T. units and more highly armed street cops to counter the firepower of the drug gangs. Not only does this drug prohibition policy put officers' lives in great danger, it also costs us a higher amount of tax money to provide them with the means of defending themselves. If these drugs were not illegal, the monetary incentive that keeps these traffickers going would evaporate. We do not see gangs organized around a black market beer and cigarettes trade, do we? If Republicans really want to help cops, we should demand that drugs be legalized and treated like alcohol and tobacco.
A final point I would like to stress ( although there are many more ) is that we Republicans are always looking for ways to get people out of the welfare system and allow them the opportunity to better themselves and their neighborhoods. However, the war on drugs is actually serving to prevent such improvement. My mother, a public school teacher in downtown Durham, sees firsthand the way promising children from poor families are sucked into the criminal world and put on a path to death, prison or worse. On the one hand, they see at least 12 years of hard work in the school system to hopefully have a chance to get a job or go to college and make something of themselves. On the other hand, they see neighborhood teenagers hanging out on the streets with gold chains and fancy clothes and cruising in $80,000 gold-rimmed cars. For many of them, the choice is sadly all too clear.
One part of The Republican Oath states, "I believe we must retain those principles worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideas with an outlook broad enough to accommodate thoughtful change and varying points of view." I think it is time the Republican Party took this statement to heart and realized that the war on drugs is not one of those "principles worth retaining."
Pubdate: Wed, 06 Nov 2002
Source: Technician, The (NC State University)
Copyright: 2002 The Technician
Contact: opinion@technicianstaff.com
Website: technicianonline.com | The student newspaper of North Carolina State University since 1920
