Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

DrugReporter

It's Time for the Federal Government to Abandon the Drug War

By Bob Barr, Huffington Post. Posted September 18, 2008.


The federal government must turn the decision on drug policy back to the states and the citizens themselves.
Advertisement

As both a U.S. Attorney and Member of Congress, I defended drug prohibition. But it has become increasingly clear to me, after much study, that our current strategy has not worked and will not work. The other candidates for president prefer not to address this issue, but ignoring the failure of existing policy exhibits both a poverty of thought and an absence of political courage. The federal government must turn the decision on drug policy back to the states and the citizens themselves.

My change in perspective might shock some people, but leadership requires a willingness to assess evidence and recognize when a strategy is not working. We are paying far too high a price for today's failed policy to continue it simply because it has always been done that way.

It is obvious that, like Prohibition's effort to eradicate alcohol usage, drug prohibition has not succeeded. Despite enormous law enforcement efforts -- including the dedicated service of many thousands of professional men and women -- the government has not halted drug use. Indeed, the problem is worse today than in 1972, when Richard Nixon first coined the phrase "War on Drugs."

Whether we like it or not, tens of millions of Americans have used and will continue to use drugs. Yet in 2005 we spent more than $12 billion on federal drug enforcement efforts. Another $30 billion went to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders.

These people must live forever with the scarlet letter P for prison. Only luck saved even presidents and candidates for president from bearing the same mark, which would have disqualified them from not only high political office, but also many more commonplace jobs.

The federal drug laws affect even those who have never smoked (or inhaled!) a marijuana cigarette. One of the lessons I learned while serving in Congress is how power tends to concentrate in Washington, and how that concentration of power begets more power and threatens individual liberty. The ever-expanding drug war is a perfect illustration of this principle.

We simply must bring our system back into balance. First, the federal government should get out of the "drug war" and allow states to determine their own drug policies. Rather than continuing to arrest and imprison people for offenses that do not directly harm other people, we should focus federal law enforcement on crimes involving serious fraud or violence, with identifiable victims. Even then, only where there is a clear and specific federal interest, should the federal government be involved.

As president, I would also begin dismantling the vast bureaucracies that have grown up as part of the drug war. My drug "czar" would diminish rather than expand the office. Importantly, the vast power of the federal government would no longer be employed to override the decision of the citizens of the states to reform their drug laws.

I also would review my presidential pardon and commutation powers as a possible means to reduce the number of people in federal prison for non-violent drug offenses. We can no longer afford the human and economic costs of imprisoning so many thousands of people for drug possession. This is the most destructive impact of drug prohibition.

With regard to the medicinal use of marijuana, it appears that politics, rather than true science, led to the government's classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, preventing its medical use, and has blocked attempts to reconsider that classification. As president, I would direct the DEA to initiate, for the first time, a truly open, fair, and objective process to test and evaluate the medical potential of marijuana. Based on the studies that I have consulted, I believe the result would be reclassification of the drug.

Regardless of federal policy, the federal government should accept the decisions of the citizens of the states if they choose to allow the medical use of marijuana. As president, I would ensure that no executive branch official interfered in a state initiative or referendum campaign. I also would direct the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Agency to respect state law. Crimes of violence, whether involving drugs or not, must continue to be investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

None of this means that I believe drug use to be harmless, or appropriate for minors. For that reason I would encourage people and institutions throughout America, from churches to social agencies to sports leagues, to work together to address drug abuse. One of our nation's greatest strengths is the willingness of people to organize outside of government to solve human problems.

But treating what is, at base, a moral, spiritual, and health problem as a matter of federal criminal law has solved nothing. The next president must put politics aside and take a long, hard look at the failure of the federal war on drugs. We must reestablish the primacy of individual choice and state's rights in deciding these issues. This always has been the greatest strength of America, and should be again.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: drug war, states rights, individual rights

Bob Barr, a former member of Congress from Georgia, is the Libertarian Party's nominee for president.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
So Glad to see Barr on Alternet
Posted by: alicelillie on Sep 18, 2008 4:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And Huffington. Barr, the Libertarian candidate is probably the best pick for anyone who understands how wrong the insane war on drugs is.

Why should any inanimate object, that cannot do anything, or harm anyone in and of itself, be illegal?

Drug control is people control. Close to a million people who have landed in jail this past year can verify that.

Please do not vote the lesser of evils. The lesser of evil is still evil. Vote for a positive good; vote Barr.

For more on libertarian thinking please see my blog at http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: see Barr on Alternet Posted by: ranchero42
» the devil is in the details... Posted by: Bearzerker
If Only Mainstream Candidates would address this issue
Posted by: picklebarrela55 on Sep 18, 2008 10:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I probably disagree with Bob Barr on a host of issues, but if I thought he could win an election I would probably vote for any candidate who supported ending the war on drugs (or at least radically altering it).

This is a huge issue that only fringe candidates tend to address. Kucinich talked about it to an extent, as do the greens and libertarians. Unfortunately our two parties have virtually abandoned any debate on this topic, at our peril. Our prisons are overcrowded, our streets our run by drug gangs, our cops are corrupt, our constitution has a drug exception, and our national debt continues to expand; all of this and we haven't even made a dent in the drug trade.

If only people realized that the war on drugs affects more than just drug users, we could start an honest debate on this subject. For now, we'll continue to eat up propaganda and stereotypes that induce public fear about even a discussion of drugs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great Points Posted by: ripsky
not about drugs at all
Posted by: strange_trp on Sep 19, 2008 2:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another well- written essay illustrating the fact that the drug war is not- and has never been- about drugs at all. It is a systematic mechanism intended to facilitate the alienation of private citizens while maintaining a perpetually expansive gap between the ruling elite and the working populous. Rooted in the ideology of the politics of fear and massively invasive indoctrination of the "us and them" mentality, the term "War on Drugs" could easily be replaced with "War on Terror," "War on Serbs," "War on Jews," "War on 'Coloreds.'"

When forced to decide that we have no choice, civilized humans throughout history have weighed the options all to arrive at the same depressingly predictable conclusion, "I'd rather be a hammer than a nail." So we surrender liberties that our nation's founding fathers fought so bravely to secure; at first we are relieved that the target of oppression is "them" and not "us," we drift along the funeral march of complacency until the lines between "we" and "they" disintegrate- and re-segregate- the ruling elite and an army of their obedient servants.

We seem to never learn that a "War" on anything or anyone only brings destruction and pain. We forget that when some of us are enslaved, none of us can be free.

No government "of the People, by the People, and for the People" should impede upon the will of the People.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Very well put! Posted by: Timba
Red Green
Posted by: Red Green on Sep 20, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congratulations Bob Barr. You have come to the realization that, by not being a member of the Republicrats,the truth can be told. Now, if it were only possible to elect a third party member, we could get somewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spectacular redemption
Posted by: rsteeb on Sep 20, 2008 7:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The enlightenment of one of the most rabid drug warriors ever has been a joy to behold. Cheryl Miller must be smiling up above...

Combined with Obama's selection of the R.A.V.E. Act's author, the redemption of Bubba's chief antagonist (after Ken Starr) gives me severe cognitive dissonance...

-Richard Steeb, San Jose

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's all about religion
Posted by: Lauren on Sep 22, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look what I found today, Rosary or gang symbol?

I'd like to know why the pot leaf is so outlawed. Did you know, not only can't I find any textiles or craft supplies pre pot inscribed, I can't even find stamp making materials to make my own stamp.

What is up with that? I find it quite irritating to have such a prohibition against my religious iconology so it will be interesting to see how it compares with this girl and her rosary. Are Catholics more deserving of respect than I am?

I guess we will see about that.

Here is where it gets local, Pleasant Hill Art, Jazz & wine fest, Oct 4-5. Stand up for your rights. Join me in a show of public prayers; we are coming out of the closet. Ja Glory!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All wars by any label are for profit and fear feeds them.
Posted by: socrates2 on Sep 25, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Strange-trp's illuminating view and analysis along with picklebarrel's and alicelillie's just about say it all.
I once read that there are two types of wars, "wars waged to be won and wars waged to be fought."
As long as there is a profit to be made in and by some corporate sector, _a war_ will be waged. And the impetus for the war will be the degree and amount of _fear_ embedded, buried, and perpetuated in the collective psyche of the population/taxpayers/voters who, naturally, are oblivious to the emotional game played in and with their heads--for the sake of profit. In too many cases, fear of death/nothingness _and_ religions have helped pre-dispose the psyche to accept and obey the fear-laden messages and propaganda the profiteers _invent_.
It's a question of control. Some people just desire to control others (and profit in the bargain); and other people _hate_ to make choices and hate _to take responsibility_ for the consequences of those choices. The former are your sadistic bullies; the latter are your masochistic sleepwalkers/"believers." Didn't Dostoyevski warn us about these types in the "Grand Inquisitor" chapter of _The Brothers Karamazov_?
Didn't the Nuremberg trials warn us that "I was following orders" is no defense, legal and moral?
Unfortunately, voices of reason and sanity that championed personal autonomy--as Tom Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison did over 200 years ago--have been relegated to marginal media such as the internet.
The corporate MSM echoes the message of the profiteers and fear-mongers. And the MSM is where the majority of the people in the United States at this point in history tune in for "information and news"...
The "war to end all wars," the wars against fascism and nazi-ism, the Cold Wars, the Drug Wars, the War on Terror were to a degree (the war to bring to an end nazi _genocidal policies_ was probably our last "just war") mere convenient labels. The war profiteers walked away and continue to walk away with their billions.
If "war," as Jacob Bronowksi once wrote, "is organized theft." Then war has cleverly evolved under our economic system into a theft of the taxpayer and robbery from the public purse.
The taxpayers paid and continue to pay through the teeth, and have acquired quasi-slave status to pay for these "wars."
Our "enemies" die at our feet, our treasury is emptied. And yet our fears abide...
We are at war, alright, but against ourselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

calling off the dogs
Posted by: poppaphil2007 on Oct 3, 2008 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally, someone comes out with the brave, unpopular notion of ending this country's longest and least productive war--the War on Drugs. Over the course of the Bush administration, this has morphed into the War on Marijuana, and this can be verified by the number of anti-pot psa's on the Tv today

I have long believed that classifying pot as an illegal drug, with penalties for possession including incarceration, as wrong-headed and reactionary. As far back as the Nixon administration, governmental advisors suggested possibly legalizing pot, only to be ignored by Nixon in the end.

Mr. Barr is not calling for the legalization of pot--he simply wants the feds to call off the endless war against this relatively harmless substance, and let the states decide for themselves whether possession and use of marijuana is indeed a crime at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]