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
thank you for the change of heart. your support for freedom is not going unnoticed
Government has a role to play in every aspect of american life even if its role is to protect our privacy...
It can work well as a servant and parnter of the american people, businesses, and institutions. We need regulation but have to fine tune what kind and how much... etc.
However, it seems that whenever we declare a 'war' on something whether it is drugs or terrorism.
We need to stop declaring war on everything and start looking how to successfully deal with these issues. Bring together the best and brightest ideas and solutions and keep working it and tweaking it until we get these issues in hand.
I am sick of the underhanded ways that politicians keep working to accumulate wealth and power while bankrupting the country. It should be a crime and people should be held accountable.
Mr. Barr obviously your an intelligent man who has worked for the government and has insider knowledge of how our government truly works. You have been a part of the disfunction that is the republican party and have caused this country great distress for purely partisan means. I admire you admitting mistakes regarding the drug war and possibly other things from your past however other than this blog or any other articles what have you done with all your experience, contacts and yes pull to stop this injustice from continuing? As they say, talk is cheap. Thank you.
Every new law creates a new class of criminal. Prohibititions tend to create a class of opportunistic entreprenor. Drug use is a medical problem that needs to be addressed by clinical means. Controling drug use and drug dealing as criminal only keeps the black market employed and profits high making it worth the risks. Treating addiction would be more effective and less costly in terms of the direct monetary and human costs of crimes perpertrated in order to produce, obtain, sell and use drugs.
Can't we ever boot paternalism and get on with this notion of FREEDOM?
And we should only treat actual addicts, not send everyone found with pot to a rehab. Just like with alcohol, there are people who can handle drugs and those who cannot.
But jailing people for growing a weed in their yard, drying it and smoking it seems just nuts!
If you could put the Pfizer or Bayer brand on marijuana, how long do you think it would take before it was regulated and distributed legally?
Big business has big investment in making sure the war on drugs keeps on losing.
The most abused drugs today are pharmaceuticals. I don't think it's an accident. I'd imagine the drug companies are quite happy.
That's the whole point being made here.. if Pfizer, Merck, or ANY other PharmaCombine
could do it, they would, but ONLY if they (think Monsanto) made all plants & sold pot
seedless..
consumers of THEIR products would start using pot instead... and grow their OWN,
thereby cutting them out of the money loop.
All 3 of those groups would see every last American DEAD before they'd let that happen.
All the US govt has to do is slap a "war on" title to a problem, and it becomes synonymous with a never-ending failure which always includes funneling billions of US tax dollars into well connected corporations' and individuals' pockets - current case in point, the so-called "war on terror".
two exceptions: 1) the "war on disco" - which was ultimately won... maybe because the US govt decided to sit that one out, and 2) the war on poverty - now, if actually forcing more middle and working class into poverty was the ultimate goal (of that "war on..."), then the US govt has done a splendid job in that regard... especially the Reagan and GW Bush administrations.
War on drugs - a joke from the start - a lot of money spent and laws made to put the small guys in jail - but not the big fish - how can you give someone a harder/more jail time for having crack cocain then for having powder cocain - if you dont have powder you cant make crack
they need to do random small airport sweeps - you know this stuff is being flown in
Bob, thank you for a clear position on a victim less crime that also has clear racial overtones. Time we push all the pols to also stand up and admit their mistake on the war on drugs. Every Presidential candidate should clearly state - yes or no on private personal drug usage. This was a horrible mistake of Regan. Prohibition was clearly shown to increase crime. It was also clearly shown to violate our freedoms.
What we do in the privacy of our own home, with other consenting adults is only our business, not to be dictated by bureaucrats in Washington.
Hey Bob, you were also wrong about gay marriage, abortion and every other 'culture wars' issue.
The government does have a role in the drug problem ("war" on drugs... How can one go to war on an inanimate object?) and that is to pay for drug treatment for those that can't otherwise afford it. This would be no problem if we had universal health CARE and not that the universal health COVERAGE that the dems were proposing and have since backed off on. That leaves us still in the dark ages...
Ah, the true beauty of libertarianism in action. *Everyone's* in favor of less government, but only in the abstract..
Once you start haggling over the tough concrete choices, all consensus valishes, and once the horse-trading ends, you end up with something much like the status quo.
Mr. Barr -
You could have chosen a better example than the WWE. That organization has a long history of allegations of assorted drug abuse within its ranks. Hulk Hogan and others have admitted to abusing steroids and other performanc
The only reason the WWE was so quick to clean house now is their fear I think of what else a full-fledged federal investigation might have dug up. You know, the kind of investigation you, sir, you used to lead as a prosecutor.
There is really only a handful of men and women in the WWE who are directly affected by drug abuse. It's high-profile because they're in the ENTERTAINMENT business, and one of their own went on a killing spree. It's a shiny object, and you sir, as a politician, are still reaching for the shiny objects.
Why, Mr. Barr, don't you gather the stats and make the case clearly here for the tens of billions that can be saved in enforcement and incarceration expenses; and the thousands of lives that the government going forward would not ruin by ending this ludicrous war on drugs???
The "war on drugs" has been a failure because it is government attempting to legislate morality. Alchohol, tobacco and drug use can never be legislated out of existence without draconian measures equal to or in excess of a witch hunt.
But I disagree with the proposition that this obviates the need for government or negates the positive impact of a well reasoned law enforcement program. For some, national defense is the only legitimate role of the Federal government. Providing for the common defense is a specific mandate. But defending the citizens of this country from its enemies, both foriegn and domestic, implies a collective certainty about what constitutes a threat to the public. Crime poses a threat no less than, and likely more commonly, than international agresssion.
To assert that government regulation of something is bad, is to assert that trying to prevent damage, trying to insure the public well being is bad. I don't buy it.
Government is as effective at any endeavor as the quality of law makers and enforcers allow it to be.
The War on Drugs has made Organized Crime lackeys out of everyone involved. The same people who sell you pot are the last ones who want it legalized. Add into the mix all of the people who equate having a sense of community with taking a busy-body approach to everyone's personal business (reinforced by TV and other venues of American "culture"), and you have a situation held in place by some pretty daunting forces.
Regarding the Republican spin on Libertarianism (which you, Mr. Barr, have yet to demonstrate a total break from - we'll have to see), we hear the phrase, "less government". Well, the phrase "less government" is to less government what the phrase "pro-life" is to being among the only group that values life. When Republicans say less government, it really means less governing of what the big corporations do. They come this close to saying it out loud. I'm actually surprised that no Democrat has ever identified the true significance of this phrase for Republicans and thrown it back in the face of those who use it (i.e., all Republicans).
I left the libertarian party when it got overwhelmed with folks too right wing for the GOP.
The left, social, Libertarians need their own party.
I still like the Libertarian political mapping concept.
http://www
At least I saw the test first associated with the Libertarian party.
Yes research, small l libertarians have been brushed aside. The main problem with the libertarian economic platform, is that market capitalism is anything but free. For myself, civil libertarians are the important ones.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
