Cease-Fire on Drug War? 

Cease-Fire on Drug War? 
Posted by FoM on June 14, 2000 at 12:06:15 PT
Letters To The Editor
Source: WorldNet Daily
Ted Wegener's recent letter to the editor says, "Libertarians see the improper way the drug problem is being waged and they throw the baby out with the bath water and say 'Solve the problem: legalize drugs.' By advocating the legalization of drugs they are advocating the destruction of society." 
Mr. Wegener apparently doesn't understand: We have to throw the baby out with the bath water because this is Rosemary's Baby we're talking about. Republicans and Democrats are quite willing to sacrifice your children to criminal drug dealers in the vain hope that someday, somehow the Drug War will be won. Only Libertarians seem to realize that -- just like Alcohol Prohibition -- drug prohibition fosters only gang warfare, law enforcement corruption, overcrowded prisons with no room for the truly dangerous criminals, and wholesale violations of the Bill of Rights. These tragedies aren't the result of bad administration; they are inherent in any attempt to enforce victimless-crime laws. Fortunately, the insane War on Drugs is living on borrowed time. Public attitudes toward the Drug War have changed dramatically in the last five years. Thanks to Libertarians who recognize that government doesn't work, but freedom does, we probably will see an end to the Drug War within the next five years.  Harry Browne, June 14, 2000  Where's The Victim?   In a letter to the editor on Tuesday, Tim Wegener points out that banning drugs won't stop drug use anymore than banning murder stops murder. The major difference between drug use and murder, however, is murder infringes on another person's rights. The act of taking drugs doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights anymore than owning a gun infringes on the rights of others. We already have laws that punish people for infringing on the rights of other people; this is truly the only basis of laws, to protect basic human rights of life, liberty, and property. Since drug use and drug sales involve private property and the lack of a victim reporting the infringement of rights, the government often must infiltrate private property and spy on its citizens in order to catch the bad guys. This is the danger in passing laws against activities in which no rights are infringed and no one reporting the infringement of their rights; the government ends up having to watch over all of us to make sure we are not committing these activities that don't infringe the rights of others. The worst part is that the government ends up instituting private citizens as watchdogs, constantly making sure their neighbors aren't committing vices and being legally required to report any and all vices their neighbor commits. As this happens we become a society so wrapped up in watching our neighbors' vices, that we ignore the true crimes that involve the infringement of the rights of others. This can be plainly seen with gun control laws. Criminals that murder people with guns are seen by gun control advocates as victims of a society that has an excess of guns, instead of as psychopaths who have no respect for life.  Matt Winschel  Wegener's Dim View:  What a dim view Ted Wegener has of the American people or, perhaps, of humanity as a whole. I'm glad I share Ronald Reagan's belief in the goodness of human beings. I think it's safe to assume that Rush Limbaugh, Alan Keyes, Ted et al. would not become addicts if drugs were legalized. So by what warped thinking does Ted assume that the rest of us would? He wrote that "Laws do not stop people from taking drugs." Right on, and the absence of such laws won't compel them to start! The benefits to be derived from legalization, not the least of which is a lot more personal freedom, would far outweigh any negative consequences. The only "unseen, invisible enemy" I fear is comprised of anti-Constitution politicians and bureaucrats who are striving mightily to extend the government's control over our individual rights and liberty.  Don Bates Crooked Dope on Hypocrisy:   Ted Wegener wrote to WND, "Laws do not stop people from taking drugs, they also do not stop people from murdering, burglary, or robbery." This is a non sequitur. A person taking drugs does not harm anyone else, as does a person who murders, or commits burglary or robbery. Wegener goes on to say, "By advocating the legalization of drugs they are advocating the destruction of society." But it is hypocrites like Wegener who support the legalization of the most harmful drugs, tobacco and alcohol. According to Wegener's "logic" he must be advocating the destruction of society. Drug prohibitionists hypocritically advocate unlawfully exempting the most deadly and dangerous drugs, tobacco and alcohol, from the drug laws. Many drug prohibitionists use tobacco and/or alcohol for recreational purposes. Drug prohibitionists like Wegener need to understand that their position is fundamentally dishonest and hypocritical. Jesus explicitly opposed prohibition and condemned hypocrisy (Matt. 15:7-11). When will the drug prohibitionists repent of their evil hypocrisy and demand that the government treat ALL drugs, including tobacco and alcohol, according to the same laws and regulations honestly, fairly, and consistently?  Tom BarrusTuesday, June 13, 2000  Prohibition and Other Nasty Habits:   Thank you for publishing Alan Bock's column, "Making War on Free Speech." He makes excellent points regarding the dangers to free speech posed by proposed legislation (Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act). Why would "our" elected representatives vote in favor of any act that would diminish constitutional protections and freedoms? I think I have a clue. Within the Catholic Church, the Vatican prohibits even the discussion of the ordination of women as priests. Within the United States, Congress is trying to prohibit the discussion of currently illegal substances (especially on the Internet) via the misleading and unconstitutional Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act. Both the Congress and the Vatican want to silence dissent because they realize that in a free and open forum their policies of prohibition will not withstand rational debate. Members of the Catholic Church may think they must accept papal edicts on faith. Drug Czar Barry McCaffery would like citizens of the United States to accept the transgressions of the War on Some Drugs on faith. Faith is required when rational explanations for policies do not exist. However, the citizens of the United States do not have to accept any actions of our political representatives on faith. The policies and laws that govern our behavior must be subject to rational debate by the whole body politic. The Vatican makes no pretense of being a democracy. The Congress is attempting to destroy our democracy. Thought precedes speech. Don't allow Congress to control your thoughts. Don't allow prohibition to become a habit.  J. Colman-Pinning I can't help but write to you when I read your e-mails to the editor advocating legalizing drugs. Many Libertarians, who are basically good Americans, have bought into the lie that drugs should be legalized. Laws do not stop people from taking drugs, they also do not stop people from murdering, burglary, or robbery. The law is similar to the Ten Commandments in that it sets a standard and also allows society to protect itself by putting the wicked away. Hopefully, during their time of incarceration they will come to repentance (the word penitentiary comes from the word penance), and commit themselves to living a good life. We will not solve our problem by legalizing drugs or murder or burglary or any other wicked activity of men. Libertarians see the improper way the drug problem is being waged and they throw the baby out with the bath water and say "solve the problem: legalize drugs." By advocating the legalization of drugs they are advocating the destruction of society. Taking recreational drugs is not a harmless activity: the continued use of drugs opens a person to demonic possession, and the dark forces then guide a person in all his ways. Christian Libertarians should think twice before they advocate something that will help an unseen, invisible enemy.  Ted WegenerMonday June 12, 2000 Drug Warriors Battle Against Freedom:  Thank God people are finally starting to wake up and see this insane "drug war" for what it really is -- a concerted and calculated effort by the imperial federal government to curb our constitutional freedoms, targeting specifically the First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendments. What bothers me is that this anti-drug, hysterical rhetoric still seems to sell to the voters -- especially so to the "religious right" fringe of the Republican Party. An interesting dichotomy of this group's beliefs on personal freedom is most of them seem to understand that federal government should not have the right to tamper with the Second Amendment in any way, yet they see nothing wrong with the erosion of our freedoms all in the holy name of this "drug war." Interestingly enough, it does not take a rocket scientist to see the link between the "gun grabber" effort and the "drug war." As a former Republican, when the GOP decided it best to pander to the fundamentalist "Christian Right" as a integral part of its platform, I ran screaming to the Libertarian Party. Since then I have noticed two trends in the GOP and the Democrats. While the Democrats are undeniably for HUGE government, the Republicans more often seem in favor of at least BIG government. Both parties seem to believe that the individual has too much freedom as given to us by the Bill of Rights, and in some fashion or another, they are constantly trying to limit those freedoms as much as possible. Across the spectrum, these limits of freedom range from how you can plan for your retirement, how much of your income will be taken via threat of force to fund various nonsense social programs, limits to free speech all in the name of political correctness, limits to your freedom of religion, limits to your right to defend yourself with a gun, to restrictions on what a woman chooses to do with her body, exactly what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, what chemicals an individual chooses to ingest, and the freedom against search of your property or person. The next time any individual attempts to identify the GOP with personal freedom and defenders of the Constitution, I will remind them of the failed Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, strongly supported by Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. If there ever was a greater attempt to nullify the Fourth Amendment, I do not know of it. And this came from a Republican. More people need to wake up and realize that the common denominator of the two major political parties in this country is that they are both after your freedom. Personal freedom is the greatest threat to tyranny, and both the GOP and the Democrats know this all too well. This is why I am a Libertarian. God help us all if something doesn't change soon.  W. K. Haney Undoing Drug War:  Drug prohibition is doomed to failure. Restricting free speech to stop criticism is the only way the liars, frauds, propagandists and profiteers who support the drug laws can continue their lunatic crusade against drugs. When the alibis for drug prohibition are examined historically or scientifically, it quickly becomes apparent that there never was any good reason to ban drugs. Drug prohibition is a worse failure than our catastrophic misadventure with an alcohol ban in the 1920s and '30s. And for precisely the same reasons. Attacking free speech about drugs is being done to protect the most outrageous liars in history from the devastating criticism of an utterly failed policy that grows more insistent every day. We will never be "drug-free," but we can lose all of our freedoms if we allow insane drug prohibitionists to dismantle the Bill of Rights. The solution to our self-created "drug problems" is to repeal drug prohibition entirely and install a regulated market for adult drug use. Repeal and regulation ended the disaster known as Alcohol Prohibition and a regulated market will end the catastrophe known as a War on Drugs.  Redford Givens Sneak and Peek at Your Dwindled Rights:   Thanks for covering the Sneak and Peek story. Come election time -- for the next six years -- it will be worth remembering the following from your story: "A Senate version of the bill, which passed Nov. 19 by unanimous consent, included the provision at the insistence of the bill's sponsor, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah." UNANAMOUS. Not a SINGLE dissenting vote. One hundred senators, and the number of them willing to support the Bill of Rights is exactly ZERO. I have one more thing to say on the subject to WND readers: please stop deluding yourself that the GOP is any better or less fascist than the Dems. Please consider supporting and voting for the Libertarian Party. See the LP website for a story about the sneak and peek provision.  Glen AllportStop the "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act" Now! Saturday, June 10, 2000 One Freedom-Grab Stopped:   Thank you for having WorldNetDaily cover the defeat of the "sneak and peek provision for breaking into homes. Please keep people informed if any more of this sort of thing is hidden in future legislation. I feel there are people who spend all their time trying to push the envelope toward stripping us of our freedoms and the public needs to know this sort of thing ahead of time so they can raise an outcry. I had been very upset about this legislation and felt powerless. Thank God some big organizations started complaining and it was stopped. Thank you again for covering this.  Cynthia Price4th Amendment Safe -- for Now 14, 2000 1999  Drug War Threatens U.S War On Free Speech
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #4 posted by Morgan on June 14, 2000 at 15:26:00 PT
Hey R.Earing
I guess you've never visited small town Texas or gone to a pentecostal church... damn demons are everywhere...............................................................
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by freedom fighter on June 14, 2000 at 14:33:53 PT
Hey Kapt.
70 million right reasons to do what you said.. I totally am in agreement! 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on June 14, 2000 at 12:55:01 PT:
Big fat targets
Fact: there are 70 million US citizens who have used cannabis. That's 70 million 'criminals'. That's also perhaps 70 million voters. 70... million. What couldn't we do if we *all* got off our duffs (instead of just the usual cadre of rough-and-tumble types) and became politically active? Even if the limit of their activity were to write a letter, it would have a powerful effect. One or two people writing a letter can be ignored... a sizable percentage of 70 million simply cannot be. 'Come election time -- for the next six years -- it will be worth remembering the following from your story: "A Senate version of the bill, which passed Nov. 19 byunanimous consent, included the provision at the insistence of the bill's sponsor, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah." The DrugWarriors are fond of 'making examples'. They made an 'example' of Todd McCormack. They made an example of Peter McWilliams. Will Foster. Rene Boje. Marvin Chavez, and 600,000 others. They *especially* made most permanent and deadly 'examples' of Esequiel Hernandez, David Scott, Ismael Mena, and God knows how many others yet unreported.Isn't it time we made some 'examples' of our own? No, I am not advocating violence, but I am suggesting this: November is a short 6 months away. Write your Senators *in an open latter* and ask them, point blank, why we should vote to return them to office after having urinated on the Constitution as they did in this vote? Pull no punches; they don't deserve such courtesy. Remind them of the Constitution they swore to uphold. Send them a copy, and tell them you'd be happy to help them with the big words if they have trouble reading it. Publish any replies you receive. But keep asking. Make them squirm. If any of them fail to get re-elected, write to your local paper and state that part of the reason for that was their failure to protect individual liberties. The supposed winners of the election might then realize that it wasn't such a good idea to do as their predesscors did.It's long past time that we made some 'examples' of our own. There's 70 million of us (!)...and only a hundred of them. Hint, hint, hint.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by R.Earing on June 14, 2000 at 12:37:25 PT:
Demonic possesion!!!
Hahahahaha! Dark and mysterious forces! War on Drugs to prevent Demonic Possesion! What kinda Pilgrim loser witch hunting freak is that guy? Ever been really scared and amused at the same time? Are 21st century Americans really afraid of being possesed by demons? What a world class laughingstock.Never know...I'm going to buy some garlic and holy water. Sheesh!
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment

Name: Optional Password: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: