PDA

View Full Version : bob barr: federal drug war rethought


saz
09-11-2008, 01:51 PM
Federal Drug War Rethought (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-barr/federal-drug-war-rethough_b_125458.html)

Bob Barr

Posted September 10, 2008 | The Huffington Post | 04:12 PM (EST)


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.


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

travesty
09-11-2008, 01:59 PM
(y) Big Bob Barr fan here and the war on drugs is a joke, great article. However, I was a bit disappointed to hear the kind of selfish remarks his campaign manager had to say about the Ron Paul press conference though. I guess they are just trying to keep their campaign as "legitimate" as possible.

Dear Friend,

Before I move forward with an important report for today, I would like to recognize and remember the 2,819 men and women who lost their lives seven years ago. As a result of the attacks of September 11th, Americans came together, setting aside differences in order mourn our shared losses and assist our neighbors in need.

May we never forget . . .

In times of crisis, strength in leadership requires boldness of character, clear direction and firm resolve. As we witnessed after the attacks of September 11th, President George W. Bush showed incredible leadership as he stood atop a fire truck amidst the rubble of the twin towers to rally America.

While the quality of leadership is rare enough, principled leaders are few and far between. Those who do appear to posses the traits necessary to lead, for reasons only known to themselves, frequently choose not to stand on principle.

Yesterday, our vice presidential candidate, Wayne Allyn Root, offered to step aside to allow Congressman Ron Paul an opportunity to serve on the presidential ticket of the Libertarian Party and move the agenda of Liberty forward.

On the surface, a simple offer was extended. In fact it was principled leadership at its finest.

Wayne Allyn Root showed his deep commitment to the principles of our cause. Without hesitation or regard to the effort, time and personal funds he has committed to the issues of freedom, smaller government, less taxes and the Libertarian ticket, Wayne offered to step aside to allow another leader to step up.

I could not be more proud of his actions and selflessness.

As America is hurling towards crisis on many fronts, we need principled leaders like Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root. We have no time to waste on anything other than spreading the message of smaller government, less taxes, and more personal freedom issues across this nation.

That brings me to my next point.

Today our campaign is being criticized by a few people for my decision to not attend a press conference sponsored by Ron Paul's political action committee. I thought I would take a minute to explain to you why I made that decision.

It became evident to me after meeting with Ron Paul's staff that this media event was not about promoting the liberty agenda; it was about promoting a man. That's not what we're in this for.

After rumors were spread in advance of the news conference that Bob Barr was dropping from the race - just to hype the event - I became even more hesitant to attend. Those tactics were unacceptable and when asked about it, Ron Paul's staff simply smiled and said it would attract the press.

When I was provided a copy of Ron Paul's prepared remarks just hours before the start of the planned news conference it became clear to me that the message Ron Paul intended to deliver was essentially to scatter the votes for the liberty agenda to the four winds.

His remarks not only encouraged anyone listening to support any one of four candidates, he also applauded 'non-voters'. To me encouraging people not to vote is not principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.

I made the decision that attending that news conference was not consistent with Bob Barr's principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.

Once I informed Ron Paul's staff of my decision I was rudely informed that my decision would have permanent ramifications, I was personally threatened and Bob Barr was politically threatened. That's a far cry from principled leadership.

One thing that did occur as a result of yesterday's events is a clear separation of certain factions. Up until now, we have been dealing with two groups, those who want to advance the issues of liberty and those who have been drawn into a cult of personality.

There are those who support a specific politician and then there are those who support the liberty agenda regardless of standard-bearer.

Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root and the Libertarian Party stand for the issues of personal freedom and responsible government. As they have proven, both Bob and Wayne are willing to lead or follow for the advancement of our issues.

Now is their time to lead.

As we move into the final 50 days of the campaign we are in place to make a strong impact on the future of our country.

At the end of the day, the number of votes cast in support of the Liberty agenda in the General Election will influence the national political agenda of the next four years.

If we do our jobs, work hard and give us much as possible until Election Day, our voices will be heard and our agenda of smaller government, lower taxes, more personal freedom and government accountability will be on the table for years to come.

I appreciate your commitment and dedication.


Sincerely,



Russell Verney
Campaign Manager

saz
09-11-2008, 03:37 PM
i don't know, i kind of side with the campaign manager, but then again i'm currently on about four hours sleep.

the republican party has been making a complete mockery of conservatism for a long time. torture, waterboarding, huge deficits, illegal wars, plundering the treasury, fisa, illegal wiretapping, the patriot act, guantanamo bay, expanding the size of the government, katrina, the jesus freaks: goldwater and eisenhower must be rolling in their graves. i would really love to see barr debate mccain.

travesty
09-11-2008, 04:58 PM
The Republican party, as it is now, think he is just a kook. They act like he is insane when ever he tries to get to the meat of an issue. Same way they tried to portray Paul in the primary debates. Straight, honest, intelligent answers just freak them the fuck out so you must be some sort of crazy to talk like that.

I saw Barr on Hannity and Combs and that arrogant douche Shawn Hannity asked him if he wanted to legalize heroine and crack like three times. Here it is....
Here (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q)

People just don't seem to want to want to get to the real root of the issues. They would rather blame Barr or Nader for the loss of their big party candidate who just glosses over the top of each issue, if the address it all. It really gets me so incensed I can't deal with it. When that happens I cling to my guns.....and go to the range to blow off some steam.

saz
09-11-2008, 05:24 PM
i just watched that clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q). man, hannity makes me want to vomit. he's such a slimey, whiney, little conniving republican hack mouthpiece who acts like a juvenile bully on the air. huge amount of respect to barr for holding his own and shoving hannity's crap back in his face.

i remember too giuliani getting all uptight and offended by paul in the debates when paul told it like it is regarding american foreign policy and why america has enemies. the gop is a party of neanderthal meatheads. and obviously it's not any better on the other side. so many progressive bloggers and sites have criticized obama on fisa and for not supporting single-payer health insurance, yet still endorse him and have stated it is the duty of progressives to vote for him, all the while rebuking and ridiculing nader. :rolleyes:

you're right, the pundits, media and big party representatives don't want to get to the real root of the issues or face reality. it's all about the 'horse race' scenario, the heavyweight bout; a superficial high school popularity contest, where image and persona rules out anything of real, substantive value.

travesty
09-11-2008, 07:07 PM
the gop is a party of neanderthal meatheads. and obviously it's not any better on the other side. so many progressive bloggers and sites have criticized obama on fisa and for not supporting single-payer health insurance, yet still endorse him and have stated it is the duty of progressives to vote for him, all the while rebuking and ridiculing nader. :rolleyes:

(y)
Everyone wants to fuck the Prom King but no one wants to date him cause he's an asshole. It's pathetic, and you're right, on both sides. By the way, what happened to immigration in this campaign? Did everyone just forget about it overnight? The answers these two geniuses give to questions are so vague and non-specific. For once I want an interviewer to listen to one of their answers then say "WHAT? Are you fucking serious? Is that how you have decided to explain this to America? Do you think we are all retarded?"

DroppinScience
09-11-2008, 08:26 PM
I can respect Eisenhower (he wasn't necessarily a conservative, overall he was quite moderate), but Goldwater was certifiably batshit insane, such as wanting to nuke Vietnam. Maybe he appears less insane now, but the neo-cons looked to him as their savior.

saz
09-11-2008, 09:15 PM
ike was of the old school moderate conservative or libertarian breed, you could even make a very similar argument for goldwater (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRq-gelZFgg). and that really was just rhetoric. he wasn't batshit insane, and there was no such thing as a neo-conservative in the 1960s. i don't honestly believe that goldwater, if elected, would have resorted to nuking vietnam. he wasn't that stupid. regardless, he backed the arizona naacp and was involved in desegregating his home state's national guard. goldwater supported the civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960. he only opposed the 1964 civil rights act because he thought it unconstitutionally extended the federal government's reach in an attempt to "legislate morality". if i remember correctly, it was suggested in mr. conservative (http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/mrconservative/) that he came to regret that decision, which cost him a great deal of support in the '64 presidential campaign. unlike mccain, goldwater was a true maverick, a very libertarian republican who began to change his views. he supported gays in the military and fought his party in the 80s because of its take over by the christian right, who he fiercely despised:

"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country."

"A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."

"I look at these religious television shows, and they are raising big money on God. One million, three million, five million - they brag about it. I don't believe in that. It's not a very religious thing to do."

"If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet, they could do us in."

"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

"Well, I've spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the 'Old Conservatism.' And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength."

"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic."

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

"I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

travesty
09-11-2008, 09:41 PM
Where have all the good men gone?

DroppinScience
09-11-2008, 10:36 PM
Yeah, I know Goldwater later changed as the GOP started getting weird. And I do give him props for wanting a civil election (such as offering to JFK a city-by-city town hall tour, if I remember that right). But still, his failed '64 campaign DID give birth to a new kind of conservatism that people like Reagan later came to embrace and learned how to start winning elections with. Maybe this vision of conservatism was the same as what Barry had in mind, but we're certainly paying the price for his '64 loss.

Dorothy Wood
09-11-2008, 11:30 PM
holy shit, I think those bob barr youtube videos just made me a libertarian.

saz
09-13-2008, 03:38 PM
while i find libertarians to be insane on issues like domestic policy, economics, regulation etc, they are incredible and in line with liberals, progressives, socialists etc on foreign policy, the bill of rights and the constitution. i just think that people who call themselves conservatives should be supporting and voting for libertarians or even republican moderates. today's republican party would loathe and chastise the likes of goldwater, rockefeller, nixon and eisenhower. even reagan raised taxes, supported amnesty for immigrants, and got out of lebanon after the barracks bombing.