The rapid growth of the State has created a lot of concern for many Americans. A concern only exacerbated by representatives in Washington, who show more interest in lobbyists than in the people back home.
As a result, a growing number of Americans are once again reexamining the relationship between the individual and the State. A relationship highlighted by the War on Drugs.
Like most topics, there is no unified theory of agreement regarding the War on Drugs, certainly not among conservatives. Since some people support it and others don't, it can be a difficult topic to boot.
This post is the first in a series, presenting both the moral and practical case, for ending the War on Drugs.
The Moral Case Against the War on Drugs
Drugs are bad. Arguing that a life of perpetual intoxication is dangerous, or that addiction can ruin a life, is a complete waste of time and breathe. It's like declaring the sky is blue! Besides, the rare person who'd argue otherwise, simply isn't serious.
Likewise, being against the War on Drugs, does not equate to condoning drug use. Those who imply it does, are attempting to stifle debate.
What it is about however, is using the government monopoly on violent force, locking up non-violent people, spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars each year doing so, turning a blind-eye to Constitutional law, the unintended consequences effecting society, and the corruption of our foreign relations.
A common objection to ending the War on Drugs, is that legalization isn't a "solution." I agree. It's not a solution to any kind of drug use.
The problem with that argument though, is that the War on Drugs isn't "solving" anything either. At best, it's giving us a false sense of security, because "something's being done."
Drug use is as prevalent today, as it was before the drug war started. Even worse, in study after study, teenagers continue to tell us that "it's easier to get marijuana than buy cigarettes, beer or prescription drugs."
That number is up 37 percent from 2007.
But, local law enforcement says these numbers don't match up to what's happening here in east Idaho.
According the Pocatello Police Department, since the beginning of the year there were 58 alcohol violations with minors younger than 18, while there were only 12 marijuana violations.
The Pocatello cops are obviously trying to cover their behind with that statement. Because as we all know, most kids never get "caught." Which brings me to parental rights.
One of the facts of life, is that anything can happen to anyone.
You can be the perfect parent to your child, in every conceivable way. Yet it still doesn't guarantee that your teenager won't experiment with drugs. And if they do, it's possible they develop a habit, or worse, an addiction.
It's scary. I agree. But what would you do to help your child?
Would it be best if armed police officers harassed and arrested your child, subjected him/her to the courts, and required them (you) pay various costs and fines before hauling them off rehab or jail?
Or would you prefer to intervene with the child yourself, providing the unconditional acceptance, love, and forgiveness, that only a parent can offer?
My suspicion is you'd choose the latter.
But as long as the War on Drugs continues, you're in a race against the clock. Because if the State gets to your child first ... the State will make the choice, rendering you, the parent ... helpless.
-----
We've only scratched the surface here, but it's enough for now. We'll continue with the case against the War on Drugs in another post soon.
[...] The Classic Liberal makes a case against the war on drugs. [...]