I Was Wrong About The War On Drugs -- It's A Failure
I'll admit it, just five years ago I was "Public Enemy Number 1" in the eyes of the Libertarian Party. In my 2002 congressional race for Georgia's Seventh District, the Libertarian Party ran scathing attack ads against my stand on Medical Marijuana.
Today, I am their presidential nominee and will represent libertarians at the top of the ticket on November 4th.
Huh?
That's right, Bob Barr, formerly the War on Drugs loving, Wiccan mocking, Clinton impeaching Republican is the presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party.
Now, you may be asking how this happened and my answer is simple: "The libertarians won."
For more than three decades, the Libertarian Party and small "l" libertarians have done their part to prove to America that liberty is the answer to most of the problems that we face today. Over the past several years, I was one of the many people influenced by this small party.
Whether through the free market or by simply allowing families to make their own decisions regarding the education of their children, libertarians have taught us that liberty does truly work.
In stark contrast, when government attempts to solve our societal problems, it tends to create even more of them, often increasing the size and depth of the original problem. A perfect example of this is the federal War on Drugs.
For years, I served as a federal prosecutor and member of the House of Representatives defending the federal pursuit of the drug prohibition.
Today, I can reflect on my efforts and see no progress in stopping the widespread use of drugs. I'll even argue that America's drug problem is larger today than it was when Richard Nixon first coined the phrase, "War on Drugs," in 1972.
America's drug problem is only compounded by the vast amounts of money directed at this ongoing battle. In 2005, more than $12 billion dollars was spent on federal drug enforcement efforts while another $30 billion was spent to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders.
The result of spending all of those taxpayer's dollars? We now have a huge incarceration tab for non-violent drug offenders and, at most, a 30% interception rate of hard drugs. We are also now plagued with the meth labs that are popping up like poisonous mushrooms across the country.
While it is clear the War on Drugs has been a failure, it is not enough to simply acknowledge that reality. We need to look for solutions that deal with the drug problem without costly and intrusive government agencies, and instead allow for private industry and organizations to put forward solutions that address the real problems.
One such solution was presented to me recently by a libertarian friend and supporter, Glenn Jacobs.
Glenn is a very unique guy with a very unique job. To say Glenn is a "big guy" or "intimidating" is an understatement. He gives people nightmares... literally.
Each week Glenn, who stands nearly seven feet tall, walks into a wrestling ring under the stage name "Kane" to beat other large men for sheer entertainment purposes.
Had I not pursued a career in politics -- and were about two feet taller -- I might have chosen a similar career path. Maybe...
In June of 2007, Glenn and many of his friends and co-workers in the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) were rocked by the news of the Chris Benoit tragedy that took place in my home state of Georgia.
It was speculated that Chris had murdered his family and committed suicide in a steroid or "roid" rage. While it is unclear how much of a role drugs played in Benoit's actions, and whether mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) may also have been a contributing factor, it was clear the WWE had some serious problems within its organization.
In the wake of the tragedy, the head of the WWE, Vince McMahon, and its other leaders looked internally to recognize these problems and address them. Although in the two years before Benoit's death, dozens of wrestlers had been suspended, gone to rehab, or been dismissed under the WWE's recently adopted "Wellness Program," the WWE strengthened its drug policy further, re-emphasizing that its policy wasn't merely a document, but the internal laws of the company that would be enforced.
Additionally, in response to speculation by brain trauma experts that Benoit may have been suffering from brain damage caused by years of blows to the head, WWE added a MTBI component to its Wellness Program.
McMahon didn't wait for Congress to pass a law or parade his wrestlers in front of congressional committee hearings; he took the lead and assumed responsibility over the health and welfare of the individuals who work for the WWE.
As part of the WWE Wellness Program, wrestlers go through regular drug testing and even cardiovascular testing. The latter identified a previously unknown heart condition for the wrestler "MVP" and he was treated for Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome. The government's War on Drugs wouldn't have done that.
Sadly, the long standing War on Drugs also did not save the life of Chris Benoit and his family. The truth is, only Chris could have saved himself through personal responsibility. However, the efforts of Vince McMahon are making progress in preventing other tragedies and harm.
The WWE is taking responsibility for its talent and giving its participants the resources that they need, through rehabilitation, testing and even anonymous help lines, to deal with any possible problems.
While there may be some employees of the organization who may not like random drug tests or being thrown on a treadmill for an EKG, they have the choice of finding a new employer.
That's the beauty of this libertarian solution. It does not take government intervention or our tax dollars. It also does not force anyone to do anything, as it only requires voluntary action and decisions.
While I applaud the WWE for taking on this responsibility with a libertarian solution, don't bother looking for me at an upcoming cage match on Friday Night Smackdown. I don't want to be responsible for hurting any of those little guys.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hmm.. I wonder why I don't believe you.
What's the difference between the WWE & the US government declaring war on drugs? Are you suggesting that if something is done by a non-governmental entity it's good, but if it's done by a governmental one, it's bad? What's the logic?
By the way, I agree with all of your criticisms of the War on Drugs & would add that if those involved make their living from it, they have little real incentive to bring it to an end--they can stretch it out forever just by focusing on and incarcerating non-violent drug offenders without endangering themselves by taking on the "big boys." But what difference does it make if they get paid by the government or a non-governmental entity?
Jun-07-2008 15:50printcomments
Marijuana, Battle Veterans and the VA
Dr. Phil Leveque Salem-News
The VA is more dangerous than a battle in Iraq.
Salem-News
Salem-News
(MOLALLA, Ore.) - It appears that battle veterans are getting it in the neck again (I'm saying this because this is a family Website).
Around June 1st 2008, The Charleston North Carolina, Gazette newspaper reported four battle veterans with PTSD dying from prescriptions given them by VA clinics. The medications wrere Paxil, Klonopin and Seroquel.
The father of one of the victims, Stan White, researched this and found eight more dead victims in the Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia area. This doesn't seem to bother the VA but we/somebody should question on what is going on. As a physician/
http://www
Don't you agree THIS is a Drug War worth fighting for real Harm Reduction?
Fascists consider the soldier to be nothing more than a reusable investment that can be abused until dead or crazy.
http://www
Our current dictator and his clone McCain are in over their pointy little heads.
The dictator's days are numbered as is McClone's.
Independent for Obama '08
Here is my view. The "war" on drugs is just like the jargon we in the US apply to certain things. A war. Wars make certain people plenty of money and promote industries. Just an example of how it applies to "low wage" workers. The pee test. That stupid test makes a certain industry billions, does nothing to get to the bottom of "drug" users and is useless. What it does do is make people who have no "drug" problems subject to the idea that their body can be invaded, and that is a prerequisite of low wage employment.
We have never had a chance in this "war". It is a joke. Again, my view, people who have become hopeless? What do they want: escape. Great. Why don't we focus on trying to make
s people less hopeless and as a result, make them less likely to need escape.
Drug wars are as stupid as most of our government incentives. Make it legal, get the profiteers out of it, and you will see it decline. I am sick of paying for this ongoing war that makes drug dealers rich, and government agencies richer.
You've hit several key points. It is also a method for bureaucrats to control our private lives. May I search your car?
People using illicit drugs aren't necessarily self medicating for a psyche. Sometimesdo it a lot of fun to do a lot of coke with someone you care about. Sometimes it's just nice getting really high, and letting th day slip away.
as far as electability goes...end
But, I also believe there are bigger fish to fry in the minds of Americans than Cannabis. I doubt many are single issue voters, these days.
I agree with the philosophy of LEAP
http://www
Good link. I wonder why violation of our basic privacy is not a bigger issue?
The only problem I find with all this are those of your audience that will vote for you when there is no hope of your being elected. Even the idea you could come close is scary wince the ideolgy you hold to is just not enough to hold the office in question. So once again many put really thinking and head for that one issue representation. Going along this direction soon we will be, as many other developing countries, a nation with so many candidates we end up with multiple run off elections.
I guess I think your off the marak in thinking that the best, only, way to get your message through is to run for president.
The logical conclusion of this argument, is that you should not vote for the person who most represents your values if it is at expensive of a more likely winner who does not represent your values.
It also follows that you should never vote for a third party, since they are too small to ever win. And by consequence they will always be too small to every win.
Your suggestion simply is to throw out any ideals or political beliefs you are passsionate about, or force yourself to be passionate about beliefs that other people have.
I think a vote sends a message, to the public and to other politicians, certainly a bigger message if your candidate wins, but a message even if s/he does not.
Vote with your belief and passion, not for the candidate that you think everyone else will vote for.
We look forwrd to your being this election cycle's "Ralph Nader". We appreciate the help.
Congratulation, Bob on partially seeing the light. It seems to me that those of you on the Right have a great fear that some of us won't show up for work. This can be seen not only in anti-drug policies but also in others such as health care, social security and weak support for good public schooling.
One does not have to too clever to see that if the drug supply is constricted then prices go up. As prices go up more people end up as the victiims of those seeking the required cash.
Maybe legalizing all drugs should now be tried and give the obscenely wasted money now used to bribe...er
we need to find out why so many people want to use drugs before we legalize it.
you would have to research back to mankind's most primal beginnings. it is human nature to seek euphoria.
If you want answers look to nature and you will find many answers about our nature. Just ask Mr. Elephant why he'll go str8 for the fermented fruits to get his/her buzz on.
It is not legalization, it is decriminalization.
We should first find out why people are doing something before criminalizing. We then need to determine why it is any of the governments business, before criminalizing.
These questions should have been answered before passing the laws. That does not mean they need to be answered to get rid of laws. Let's sunset laws and force them to be justified. The government is out of control in our daily private lives.
Should we then make alcohol illegal again until we find out why people drink? What about cigarettes?
I mean...doe
Well, Mr. Barr, congratulations. I think people need to give more credit to those, like yourself, who admit they were wrong. Instead, you will still receive criticism from those who chose their own battles.
The War on Drugs, including the screw ups during the Reagan years, have actually increased illegal drug usage. Nixon had hoped that Operation Intercept would make drugs so expensive, college kids and high school kids couldnt afford them. What it did was make them so expensive that they became profitable for large criminal operations. When cocaine was 50 dollars a gram and marijuana 15 dollars an ounce, the profit margin was too small to use airplanes to deliver it. But, thankfully, pot is now over 200 dollars an ounce and the profit margin immense. The war on drugs created drug gangs and it is now destroying Mexico.
I spent time interviewing the regional head of the Parole department. He said that private prison companies are the only beneficiaries of Mandatory Sentencing. He also said that kids who could be saved with a weekend in jail come out, after five years, as hardened criminals. The war on drugs is producing more crime than it is stopping.
But, that is an old argument.
Anyway,Bob, thanks for waking up.
Bob, you're headed in the right direction, but let's go one step further. While decriminalizing drugs is important, taxing them would be counterproductive. First, it would create an incentive for government to stimulate drug use in order to increase revenue, similar to what has happened with gambling. Second, by inflating the price, taxes would stimulate a market for contraband drugs at a lower price, thus continuing the drug trade with its associated violence.
On the other hand, government could destroy the market by providing certain generic drugs free for personal use, at least those drugs that are most addictive (heroin, crack cocaine, grain alcohol). No one else could or would compete with these generic versions and so alternate sources of supply would wither. Government would not supply or regulate value-added versions of those drugs (20 year old bourbon) which the free market would supply in open competition. The challenge would be if government could then provide generic maintenance drugs while also supplying health services to wean people from their addiction, and not succumb to exploitation or over-control of addicts. Of course, health services should include a "heavy dose" of drug-prevention information that was factually-based, not mere sloganeering like "just say no".
I would go to the extreme of government intervention. In an effort to defend our citizens from a far greater threat than international terrorism, I would use our military to make literal war on those who produce and export drugs into this country. As for the individual user, I would use government resources to offer rehabilitation rather than incarceration.
well, so far this tactic is Not working. It IS, however, costing Tax-payers a Boat-load of Money.
it would be helpful if you researched the issue.
the drug war started a long time ago. The US has spent more than $1,000,000
fast forward to the here and now.
There are More drugs, available on the streets and in our schools than ever.
Drugs today are more pure and dangerous than ever.
The drugs are cheaper than ever.
to be con't
The US has More citizens incarcerated than any other Country, with More than 800,000 arrested Every Year for Cannabis Violations alone.
The "it's for the kids" BS is not gonna work, Not anymore! In states where Cannabis Patients are protected under State Laws, Teen use has Dropped. "they" don't know why, but it is fact.
I suspect the "forbidden mystery" is gone. Education has worked.
Take Nicotine for example.
This year more than 400,000 will die from this Legal Drug. As the next generation follows, these fatalities will begin to decrease because we have strongly educated our children. The next generation will follow suit with even greater reduction of Nicotine related fatalities due to More education.
It's called Harm reduction through prevention and education. Kids today are making "Informed Decisions" and are not Consuming this deadly drug.
there are More than 600,000 Deaths each year from Legal drugs, while conversely, All Illegal drugs combined, annual deaths are just 17,000.
http://www
http://www
Who will hold BigPharma and the FDA responsible for these deaths?
Cannabis = Zero. The Most dangerous element around Cannabis Is getting Arrested!!
Cannabis Prohibition is Expensive, it Has failed and Is Morally Wrong.
Who Really Profits from Cannabis Prohibition?
I'm not talking about the DEA or the Mexican Police. I am talking about the US Army , Navy and Marines. We might make a dent in the drug cartels then. The drug cartels are a greater threat to national security than Al Qaeda. Perhaps we could use some of that trillion dollars to enable Colombian farmers to produce other crops.
Dear Mr. Barr:
I dislike the part you played in the attempted destruction of President Clinton.
I, however, admire that you have since walked away from the Republican Criminal conspiricy and bared your soul to the World. Signs of a good person.
I think you would be more useful to democracy were you to reveal ALL the Sins you witnessed within the Republican Criminal Combine. Let the RICO Act do its work. Spare America Mccain and the Republican Family ( thats why they say they are the Party of "Family" values; Crime Family they mean).
Let the Public know that that threat is the GREATEST threat to our Democracy.
thank you Sir.
.
You are dreaming.
.
The only people with any real rights in this country are billionaires and gang members.
.
The bigger your gang the more rights you have. Nobody in law enforcement will mess with you.
.
At least libertarians know how to pick their battles. Ending the War on Some Drugs is popular. Ending government-funded education and healthcare is not. I still think the libertarians ought to co-opt the Republican party so that civil liberties are rendered a non-issue and we can just fight about economic policies and social programs.
Wow, Bob, where ya been? I could have told you this 10 - 20 years ago. BC, Canda seems to be coming up with some solutions - mainly to keep the drug users off the streets. How about taxing weed and selling it like cigarettes? Perhaps that would also give our economy a lift! All the war on drugs has done is make a bunch of people really, really rich without the benefit of paying taxes on all that loot. Time for them to pay their fair share.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
