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
I have but two words for anyone who thinks drug legalization would be a godsend: "Big Tobacco." They sell a thoroughly addictive, thoroughly lethal, and thoroughly legal drug (which they merely consider just another commodity like wheat) that they themselves don't consume with the blessings of the government, which they market to children despite the law saying you have to be 18 to smoke (remember Joe Camel?) and make a massive profit to boot. Why would the Cali Cartel just roll over and die upon legalization when they could instead reinvent themselves as a vertically
You want to make tobacco illegal? No knock searches to catch smokers. Teach kids in schools to report their parents for smoking?
How many people are being murdered every year over cigarettes? How much is organized crime involved in cigarette sales? How many people are serving time in prison for smoking cigarettes? Are cigarettes bad for people? Yes, but if you've noticed the consumption of tobacco over the past decades is way DOWN. Big tobacco is dead with little hope for a future.
Since you mentioned Al Capone, I wonder if we'd ever known who he WAS without prohibition. He made a fortune and built a reputation profitting off the illegalization of alcohol. He murdered "half the population of Chicago" because there was huge profit potential in cornering the market on illegal booze.
cigarette consumption is decreasing through taxation and education, but I don't hear about too many people getting shot or forced into prostitution trying to get ahold of tobacco. I am not a libertarian, and I can think of better ways in which libertarian philosophy might help us (think Patriot act, for instance), byt instead of imagining the effects of big tobacco, compare legal alchohol sales and usage to illegal drugs, incarceration rates, etc...
Portugal and Spain have decriminalized drugs, they are doing fine.
You think things would be better if we outlawed cigarettes? Through people in jail because they enjoyed having a cigar after dinner?
That is MADNESS.
Smoking bans have already been popping up right and left. Cigarette vending machines became extinct in the '90s. Cuban cigars have been illegal for half a century. One man was fired from his job for smoking in his own house on the weekend. Seems the inmates are already running the asylum.
I used to see you on tv pushing the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and I hated your guts. I wonder if now that you are a "Libertarian" you realize that a sexual indiscretion is not an impeachable offense. I know, i know, "he lied under oath" and that was the supposed justification for the impeachment. But he lied about his PRIVATE sex life, none of your or the courts business and the case about which he was testifying was politically generated (not a legitimate case). And definitely NOT impeachable. How about a "Whoops, I was wrong on that one too".
The war on drugs, on the other hand is going just swell. The pharmaceutical companies, with their "legal" drugs are raking it in. Take Prozac. Prozac good. Nice profit. Horrible side effects but it is legal. Marijuana would be better but it is illegal because the drug companies cant patent it and charge you thousands of dollars for it. The prison industry is one of the few booming industries in our country and there would be an absolute depression in that industry if drugs were decriminalized. So, from the rightwing point of view the W.O.D. is a wonderful success. A bit of a shame about the "colateral damages" but hey, they are only poor people.
Lastly, thanks for running as a right wing "libertarian". May you serve the same role as Ross Perot in spoiling the Rethuglican dream of a thousand year Reich.
The only loser in The War on Drugs is us. The drugs are doing just fine. The only differences between now and when Nixon first declared the War on Drugs is that now drugs are more readily available than ever, more non-violent user are in jail in the US than any other country in the world and the drug gangs have gotten more ambitious and more dangerous.
In many neighborhoods the police have gone from being the protectors to the enemy. And for many poor young people dealing drugs has become what they feel is their only escape from poverty as they watch their communities fall apart around them.
So why is the War on Drugs still here? Because there is an absolute ton of money to made off of drug enforcement and incarceration of users. The prison system alone makes A TON OF MONEY! That and Americans don't like to say that we lose wars. Even if we made this one up.
Why is it still there? CONTROL. The war on drugs is an excuse to violate our personal freedoms, steel our property and rob us of our liberties. Bureaucrats love this type of program, does nothing, costs a fortune and gives them control over your personal private behavior.
Yes the drug war is of no use.
All drugs should be decriminalized.
The problem is that we would likely see drugs marketed, like alcohol.
There really should be no marketing of alcohol since it causes so much greif and people are gullable.
Look at the marketing of automobiles as one exmple of marketing contradicting reason.
Things should be legal but like abortion, not marketed as something that will make your life more fun.
i hope the obama administration puts a stop to this other never-ending illegal war on our own people.we should have the right to put whatever we want into our own bodies.the
Your former rival for the libertarian nomination, Mike Gravel, has the solution - legalize Cannabis and allow harder drugs to be prescribed by doctors. Empowering the American people to make laws at a federal level through a National Initiative process could also be a part of the solution.
I find it odd that you didn't mention the three strikes law and how it is tearing apart families. You didn't mention the implicit racism of the War on Drugs. You seem more concerned about the money that can be saved than about the people who need help or are wrongly imprisoned. That is why I won't be voting for you (well, that and serious disagreements about the nature of the so called free market).
But don't let that overstate how refreshing your conversion is.
Very good point on the implicit racism. Look at our prison statistics. Specifically look at the imprisonment rates for Hispanic and African American. The original cocaine laws were specifically discriminatory against African Americans.
It is amazing the USA is the prison capital of the world, vastly beyond any other nation.
I'll try again.
Government doesn't work well because you and other Republicans have screwed it up so badly. The War on (select) Drugs has been forced on all of us by people of the conservative stripe, who, while using those drugs liberally, found fault in certain other groups using them. The history of the Drugs War is replete with politics. Your epiphany seems rather shallow, considering you and people like you are the heart of the problem. Your sudden change of heart is tied closely with the ideology of the party you're now trying to represent.
Nice reply.
I would add that privatization is part of the problem, not a solution. There is so much money in the incarceration industry, a PRIVATE industry, that there is little incentive to legalize illegal drugs and free those whose only crime is possession. And the only thing worse than government is government combined with private industry and run by people who think private industry can solve all our problems.
SOT
Where have the Dems been on this issue - SILENT. We've seen no support from them for NORMAL. Time for many more persons to start to stand up against the ware against the people.
But at its core this is a classic neocon issue, a chance to get the government involved, spend lots of money and place controls over your private life.
It seems to me that Kerry lost an election based mainly on a single utterance, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
Mr. Barr, is there ANYTHING that you are for that you used to be for or ANYTHING that you are now against that you used to be against?
Jesus Christ, every day brings another announcement of a political Epiphany coming from your campaign.
You were FOR, and even AUTHORED, the Defense of Marriage Act, but now you're completely AGAINST it?
You were FOR, and were a driving force behind Don't Ask Don't tell, but now you're completely AGAINST it?
You were FOR, and heavily pursued and prosecuted under the "War on Drugs", but now you're completely AGAINST it?
What's next and what are you FOR today that you will be completely AGAINST tomorrow?
I glad to hear that you've now admitted that you were a completely clueless and misguided legislator but I don't think having a record of being on the wrong side of just about every issue, even if you've had a change of heart (or at least a change of message), qualifies you to be dog catcher much less President.
As a legislator you didn't have a clue and now you have a clue but have NO credibility left.
Anyone who votes for you is a fool since no one can possibly know if you'll be the same person they voted for the day after the election.
Oh grow up. Ony an idiot Republican never changes his freakin mind and thinks it is somethng to be proud of. Rock solid George W Bush and Dick Cheney. Oh joy.
It's nice to see a clear direct admission of a mistake. Typical politicians would say I was against the bad parts but for the good parts. Now that the good outweighs the bad, I go with the good. Instead, Barr is clear, the War on Drugs is wrong. I'd love to see any such clear statement from Obama or McCain (other than the obvious, Bush is bad).
True, but don't you think its possible that there's more to Barr changing his mind than reasoned analysis? Like, political advantage? One issue OK, two even, maybe....H
"According to the American Journalism Review, "Barr was one of 13 House Republicans chosen to act as prosecutors in Clinton's Senate trial. Barr, Flynt's investigators found, 'was guilty of king-size hypocrisy': An outspoken foe of abortion, the Georgia lawmaker had acquiesced to his then-wife having an abortion in 1983.[2] He had also invoked a legal privilege during his 1985 divorce proceeding so he could refuse to answer questions on whether he'd cheated on his second wife with the woman who is now his third.""
That was just one little titbit, there are plenty more, many far worse. He has always been a hypocrite.
Wow, a Republican who grew a brain! Now there's a rare sight!
Critics claiming Barr would merely transfer enforcement to corporations ignore one simple fact: decriminalization removes the basis for ANY legal authority along with any need for and the means of enforcement. Governmental involvement via enforcement of criminal and civil prohibitions is the sole source of corporate authority. What's more, in the current mindset, "good" drugs are based on intellectual property -- patents and trademarks -- owned and controlled by corporations.
Critics of decriminalization argue that drug abuse costs us all without including the cost of legal prescribed use of drugs. I'm not talking Rush Limbaugh-style 'script busting here. Consider the societal cost of overdiagnosis and overprescription of drugs like MOAIs, SSRIs, et al. Yes, they can treat real medical conditions, but we're using them as (failed) social panacea. Have you ever worked for a senior executive whose prescribed yet otherwise unsupervised Prozac use led to catastrophic complacency? (I have. He, the final arbiter on his workplace performance, was satisfied with his personal workplace results. I, his subordinate, was his flak vest. His ownership stake in the company precluded his removal; his "healthcare" was his own private concern. There is no means for quantifying this sort of abuse.)
Yes, drug abuse is real. Treating it as public health issue rather than a crime removes it from control by industrial capital.
Drug abuse isn't a law enforcement issue or a business issue. It's a health issue, and it should be treated as such.
Larger businesses may be able to operate wellness programs for their employees, but small and medium businesses cannot even fathom that sort of overhead. Furthermore, employees with drug problems would likely avoid seeking the help they need if they were expected to pursue it through their employer.
America's drug problem is as much the result of a lack of universal healthcare as it is the result of an ill-conceived enforcement regime. Drug addicts need somewhere to get professional help before they seriously hurt themselves and/or others. It's their personal responsibility to do so, but we need to address the legitimate concern that getting help would cause termination of employment and/or incarceration.
It's cruel and inhumane that street meth is vastly more harmful to one's health than pharmaceutical methamphetamine because our law enforcement tactics force cookers to make it from poisonous "dual-use" household products like drain cleaner. But employer-base wellness programs have the same problems as employer-based health insurance. Many addicts don't have jobs that offer health insurance benefits, and private insurers can find much lower-risk clients that would be far more profitable.
The WWE is clearly not a typical business, and what works for them will not work for most others.
Note also that the WWE made these changes only after a horrifying and tragic event forced their hand through social and public stigma. Yes, the WWE could have waited for Congress to make these changes for them, but if they were to save face and continue making money, they needed to do these things quickly and without governmental interference. The end result is that they get to tell their fans that they take it seriously (which is debatable), and they are free from government interference, which for them is preferable.
I suppose my point is that WWE was driven by a particularly tragic market force by the hand of Chris Benoit. The effects of growth hormones and other steroids on the body is readily apparent, and if it were true that WWE was taking this seriously, you would not see their prominent actors/athletes nearly doubling in size in a 6-12 month period unchallenged. In the WWE, if you're not juicing, you do not get top face time. PERIOD.
McMahon is a businessman, and he knows how to project the image he wants. He's also an athlete, and he knows the effect of steroids on the body. To suggest he doesn't know when his players are juicing - and that he hasn't looked the other way in favor of ratings - is ludicrous.
Bob, I agree with your stance on the War on Drugs, but to hold the WWE as a model of how things can work WELL is a fallacy.
i accept your apology mr. barr, now get back to work
The war on drugs is insane.
If drugs were legalized, distributors had to be licensed and the drugs carefully sampled for quality and purity, then lightly tax the trade and put the money towards real world education and therapy for addicts. Then the drug industry is in check, and it pays for the few problems it causes, we get rid of the huge problems with drug policy and the huge bill involved.
Like that will ever happen in the united states.
He said as he wailed about how Big Pharmaceutical was forcing unsafe vaccines down everyone's throat despite the existence of the FDA.
As always, Bob, your basic premise is wrong. You state that government creates more problems when it tries to solve a problem. That is only true of conservative government. The war on drugs is a good example. The right wing pushed the most fascistic approach to the problem imaginable. The public, and thus the ever craven Democrats, accepted it. The results have been an utter failure.
Medicare, Social Security, rural electrification, child labor protection, etc. etc, are examples of government action that worked, and worked well.
BillZBubb -- EXCELLENT POINT, excellent examples. i was thinking the same thing, but couldn't think of any examples. the conservative approach of no govt regulations - unless you are not in the money making business then we will regulate the hell out of you - hence the war on this and that - is a crock. Look at regulation of the airlines. My family's never been rich but when I was a kid they flew me back and forth - and I don't remember every single carrier filing for bankruptcy. "let the market do what it's going to do" - well ever since they deregulated, we have had more crashes, less money for tower controllers, less inspections, and more bankruptcy filings. hmmm... there has to be a happy medium. Mortgage industry is an other case and point. they either do too damn much or not enough.
You've got to kidding about gov. They give back one dollar for every three they take. I certainly don't feel my freedom privacy and property are being protected. Do you feel safe when you see blue lights in thr rear view mirror? The war on Drugs was the biggest attack on civil liberties until the war on Terror came along. Wake up America.
I do feel great comfort that Obama taught constitutinal law 11 years and regularly talks about civil liberties.
Yes, we have had BAD government, conservative, for far too long.
The Scandinavians have created a very good government by contrast.
The entire Conservative agenda is destroy government till the corporations can "drowned it in a bathtub".
That allows the robber barons to rule righteously, as they feel is their due.
Conservati
really, get some facts when you say things like that. Take Medicare. It's actually run way more efficiently than corporate health insurance. Medicare outperforms private sector plans in terms of patients' satisfaction with quality of care, access to care, and overall insurance ratings.
Elderly Medicare beneficiaries are more likely than enrollees in employer-sponsored plans to rate their health insurance as excellent (32% vs. 20%) and less likely to report negative experiences with their insurance plans (43% vs. 61%). Medicare beneficiaries are also less likely than those with private insurance to go without needed care owing to costs (18% vs. 22%). The survey also finds that elderly Medicare beneficiaries are more likely to report being very satisfied with the care they received compared with those with private insurance (62% vs. 51%).
Excellent rebuttal. Thank you.
You make an excellent point.
There is nothing inherently wrong or corrupting about government action.
Social Security as an example of a government program that works? It looks more like a ticking nuclear bomb for the youth and elderly. It is broken and broke. They are just turning their backs on the disaster because every option will cause deep pain.
The war on stupidity is a more apt term. How stupid have we been when it comes to illegal drugs. How many people have come out and said that drugs should be legal. People like Hugh Downs, John Stossel the list is endless. Drugs will never be legal until we follow the money...ou
It's not that the government "makes money" off the drug war per se. It's more accurate to point out that special interest groups which rely on government spending to enforce the so-called war on drugs have pushed their agendas on both the state and federal level to ensure their own job security. Such groups include but are not limited to the police, private security firms, and the prison-industrial complex (prison guards, the companies that build jails, and the various businesses that benefit from prison-related contracts and related revenue streams).
There is also clearly a racial component to the war on drugs as well, borne out by the disproportionate percentage of African-Americans and Latinos who are arrested, tried, convicted, and incarcerated for drug-related violations.
Craven politicians from both major parties have used code words since Nixon's time to play the racial fear card in their quest for power. The "war on drugs" in this respect falls into the same category as "the silent majority". The war on drugs has been in practice a war on the poor and on minorities (how much time has "alleged" cocaine user Paris Hilton actually spent in jail?).
The financial and race-related aspects of the war on drugs must be addressed to effect a substantive change in policy.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
