The 111th Congress should
- end the unconstitutional "war on
drugs";
- repeal the Controlled Substances Act of
1970;
- repeal the federal mandatory minimum
sentences and the mandatory sentencing guidelines;
- direct the administration not to interfere
with the implementation of state initiatives that allow for the
medical use of marijuana, and
- shut down the Drug Enforcement
Administration.
Harry Browne writes:
| Until the early 1900s, the
federal government did little to regulate or control the sale or
use of alcohol or drugs —
except for taxing alcohol.
It may be hard to believe today, but early in the 20th century
a 10-year-old girl could walk into a drug store and buy a bottle
of whiskey or a packet of heroin. She didn't need a doctor's
prescription or even a note from her parents. Any druggist would
sell to her without batting an eye; he would assume she was on an
errand for her parents.
While that may seem amazing now, it wasn't to anyone then.
Heroin was sold in packages as a pain reliever or sedative —
just as aspirin or other analgesics are sold today. The measured
dose didn't make anyone high, and rarely did anyone become
addicted — certainly
no more often than with sleeping pills today.
Given such easy access to liquor and drugs, we might assume
that America's adults and children were all high on booze and
drugs. But that wasn't the case.
There were alcoholics and drug addicts then, just as there are
today. But there were far fewer of them —
because there were no criminal dealers trying to hook people on
drugs or turn them into alcoholics. |
Free
from the Nightmare of Prohibition
When
All Drugs Were Legal ... There Wasn't a Drugs Problem
Is it the case that there were fewer addicts 100 years ago
because there were more armed government agents patrolling the streets and
handing out 25-year prison terms for recreational drug use? No. In fact,
it seems that the more our God-given rights are violated by an
ever-increasing army of government enforcers, and the more the omnipotent
state seeks to be as god, the more hopeless, confused, and even defiant
young Americans become, and the more frequently they escape a senseless
world in drugs.
| Compassionate
Conservatism?
Sharon Harris, Advocates
for Self-Government
Now
let's consider the difference between the
gentle invisible hand and the visible fist of
government with regard to violence.
Well-intentioned
or not, government is violence. As Buckminster
Fuller said, "The end move in politics is
to pick up a gun." Laws are laws only
because government can use coercion against
anyone who violates them.
In contrast,
when violence occurs in a free society, it's a
crime. The rule is voluntary exchange. The
"freedom to choose." The Golden
Rule. The gentle invisible hand.
Violence is the day-to-day normal activity of
criminals — and government. Sometimes it's
hard to tell the difference. The visible fist
of government.
When you think
about violence, think about this: government
has the War on Poverty, the War on Illiteracy,
the War on Drugs. And these are not just
metaphors, they're real wars. They are funded
at gun point and enforced at gun point. Of
course, the "War on Drugs" isn't a
war on drugs. No one ever shot an aspirin. But
it really is a war. We have Czars — people
like Bill Bennett who see nothing wrong with
beheading drug dealers. Former Speaker of the
House Newt Gingrich — himself a former pot
smoker — called for the death penalty for
drug offenders, including those who carry just
two ounces of marijuana into the country.
Prohibition
seems to bring out a terrible vindictiveness
and cruelty in some people. In 1929, Mrs. Etta
Mae Miller was convicted of having sold a
single quart of liquor. This was her fourth
such offense, so her sentence was life
imprisonment. Life in prison for selling a
quart of liquor. The General Secretary of the
Board of Temperance, Prohibition and Public
Morals [sic] said, "Our only regret is
that the woman was not sentenced to life
imprisonment before her ten children were
born. When one has violated the Constitution
four times, he or she should be segregated
from society to prevent the production of
subnormal offsprings."
Today's
prohibition is far more savage. In 2006, a
record 829,625 people were arrested on
marijuana charges — over 85% of them for
mere possession. There are hundreds of people
serving life sentences — with no possible
parole — for marijuana offenses. Journalist
Eric Schlosser told PBS there are cases of
people serving life without parole for
possession of a single joint or less.
Thousands of
Americans are serving at least five years in
federal prison — with no possible parole —
for possessing as little as five grams of
crack cocaine. Two pennies weigh more than
five grams.
The proper role
of government is to protect us from violence,
theft, and fraud. Yet government, directly or
indirectly, causes most of the violence,
theft, and fraud in our society.
Government
promotes violence in two ways.
The first is as
an unintended consequence of laws and
programs. For example, one third to one half
of criminal offenses are committed by drug
addicts driven into crime by the Drug War's
black market. Nobel Prize-winning economist
Milton Friedman estimated that up to one half
of the homicides in this country — 10,000
deaths per year — result directly from the
Drug War.
A free society
would end this violence overnight.
And in a free
society we could better defend ourselves from
violence.
Citizens would have the indisputable right to
keep and bear arms. And a gun is a wonderful
deterrent to violence. In states that have
"shall issue" laws (where people
without criminal records or evidence of mental
illness are permitted to carry guns), crime
rates are much lower than in states where
there are no such laws. A major study by
University of Chicago law professor John Lott
shows that these states reduced robbery by 3%,
aggravated assaults by 7%, and murders by
8.5%. It is estimated that extending
shall-issue laws to states that don't now have
them would lead to 12,000 fewer robberies per
year, 60,000 fewer aggravated assaults, 4,177
fewer rapes, and 1,570 fewer murders.
That means the
visible fist of government is causing a lot of
unnecessary human suffering through its
gun-control laws.
The second way
government promotes violence is by itself
committing it directly against citizens.
Government
seizes people's property when they've never
even been charged with a crime. This is called
"asset forfeiture." A better term
might be "robbery with a badge."
Under forfeiture laws, inanimate objects can
commit crimes. Such things as cars and boats
are charged with a crime, as a way for
government to confiscate them.
Imagine if I came to your house and said,
"I don't approve of the kind of beer you
drink. And I'm sure you drove your car to the
store to buy it, so your car's guilty and I'm
taking it." People would declare me
insane.
I sure wouldn't
try it in one of the "shall-issue"
states.
Today more than
100 federal laws authorize federal agents to
confiscate private property allegedly involved
in violations of statutes on wildlife,
gambling, narcotics, immigration, money
laundering, and on and on. Federal agents can
seize your property with no court order and no
proof of legal violations. Billions of dollars
worth of property has been seized in this way
from tens of thousands of Americans who have
never been accused of a crime or stood trial.
It's so difficult to get their property back
that most victims never bother to try.
The IRS can
freeze your bank account or put a lien on your
house without a hearing of any kind. And
government can take property through eminent
domain. Recently near my home the county
government forced a black church to sell its
land to make room for a tunnel. The so-called
"fair" price paid wasn't enough to
rebuild the church. A whole church community
will be displaced for a bureaucrats' idea of
progress.
In a free society, not only would this not
happen to a church, but there'd be no BATF to
burn churches down. Is your church BATF-approved?
Government theft
is more insidious than free-lance theft.
Lysander Spooner, one of America's most
brilliant political theorists, talked about
this in his masterpiece, No Treason. He
compared ordinary robbers to tax collectors.
The robber, he pointed out, robs you only once
— and then goes on his way. The government,
on the other hand, robs you year after year
after year. Then it has the gall to say it's
doing you a service and expects your
gratitude.
The visible fist
of government.
In a free
society, the right to property and privacy
would be sacred. It would be, as the great
English statesman William Pitt so eloquently
described, " . . . the poorest man may in
his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of
the Crown. It may be frail — it's roof may
shake — the wind may blow through it — the
storms may enter — but the king of England
cannot enter — all his force dares not cross
the threshold of the ruined tenement."
In a free
society, we will have that kind of protection.
Those who want your property will have to
negotiate with you. The gentle invisible hand,
not the visible fist.
What an
incentive to work for a free society!
The gentle
invisible hand vs. the visible fist of
government. It's as different as night and
day, robbery and voluntary exchange, war and
peace. Government is at perpetual war against
people and their property. We desire — we
deserve — peace.
The
Invisible Hand Is a Gentle Hand
|
|
|
- A former President said he "did not inhale."
- He searched out a dope dealer;
he paid for some marijuana;
he took it home;
he rolled it up in paper;
he lit it;
he held it up to his mouth;
but
he did not inhale.
- Right.
Kevin Craig did not inhale. Kevin Craig has never even been in possession
of any marijuana or other controlled substance. Kevin Craig does not
particularly like mind-altering substances. "Be not drunk with wine,
but be filled with the Spirit" (Ephesians
5:18).
But just as alcohol
prohibition did not work, so the "War on Drugs" has been an
unmitigated disaster, causing more harm than good, if any. Drug abuse is a
symptom of a society which has drifted away from "Liberty
Under God." This is not a problem which can be solved by
"getting tough" on drugs, that is, increasing government
coercion and decreasing Constitutional liberties. Such a cure is worse
than the disease.
Today the government will not allow
"Liberty Under God" to be taught in
government-run schools. Millions of children are indoctrinated in the
philosophy of cosmic meaninglessness and defeatism. They are virtually
taught to be drug addicts. We should be surprised that only half of all
students end up experimenting with mind-altering, spirit-deadening drugs.
How
To Win the War on Drugs
Marijuana and other drugs should once
again be legalized, and the billions of dollars presently squandered by
the government should be used as families deem fit to prevent substance
abuse. This will make our neighborhoods safe again, eliminate the hold
organized crime has on the market for certain drugs, and eliminate
widespread government corruption caused by huge drug profits.
It
is more important for government to send the message that "crime
is wrong" -- even crime committed by the
government -- than it is to send the message that "using drugs
is wrong."
But this is a moral
message.
Isn't teaching morality and helping
young people know the joy of living in God's Creation a violation of
"the
separation of church and state?" Yes, according to those
who wish to increase funds for "the war on drugs" by seizing
your property.
- Bringing
Back Liberty, Harry Browne, June 12, 2001
- Demonstration
of True Compassion, a, Harry Browne, February 15, 2000
- Drugs,
Downey, Strawberry, Junkie, & Hypocrites, Harry Browne, May 1,
2001
- For Public
Safety, We Need Less Government (from The Great Libertarian Offer)
- Free from the
Nightmare of Prohibition (from The Great Libertarian Offer)
How Terrorists Profit from Drugs, Harry Browne, March 21,
2002
- Ignorance
Is Dangerous, Harry Browne, January 17, 2002
- Invisible
Hand Is a Gentle Hand, the (by Sharon Harris), September 14, 1998
- Is Violence
Justified? (by Peter McWilliams)
- Learning
from Peter McWilliams, Harry Browne, June 17, 2000
- President's
First Day in Office, the, Harry Browne, December 1, 2000
- Seven
Ways to Make Your Neighborhood Safer, Harry Browne, October 21, 2000
- Top 10
Misconceptions about Government, Harry Browne, June 26, 2001
- Top
10 Questions Left out of the Debate, Harry Browne, October 6, 2000
We're More
Ambitious than the Republicans Are, Harry Browne, September 22, 2000
- What
Do Libertarians Want?, Harry Browne, October 25, 2000
- What If
All Drugs Were Legal? (gasp), Harry Browne, June 7, 2001
The "War on Drugs" is completely unconstitutional.
How do we know this? In the early part of the 20th century, "teetotalers"
wanted the federal government to prohibit "the manufacture, sale, or
transportation of intoxicating liquors," but "We the
People" had not delegated any such
powers to the federal government. Prohibition was unconstitutional until
the U.S. Constitution was amended by the Eighteenth
Amendment. After Prohibition was found to be a massive failure --
failing to end alcohol abuse and creating organized crime -- the 18th
Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first
Amendment.
The Constitution has never been Amended to give the federal government
power over drugs.
The "War on Drugs" is as unconstitutional as Prohibition
would have been if the Constitution had not been amended. But today's
Republicans and Democrats do not have as much respect for the Constitution
as politicians 100 years ago. For today's politicians, taking an
oath to "support the Constitution" is just a formality.
by Bart
Frazier, Posted July 6, 2007
To every high-school student in this country between the ages of 15 and
18, this letter is to you. If there is ever something that you should take
the time to learn about, it is government.
Why? — you ask. If your idea of government is endless babbling by old
congressional codgers on C-SPAN, you’re partly right. The art of
government, or politics, is less entertaining than a visit to the dentist.
However, hidden among all the babble of congressional rules and yeas and
nays that you hear on television, the real secret that is never explained
to you in school is that government is force, and government can use this
force to violate your rights.
It is through government that other people can take your money, forbid
you to visit foreign countries, prevent you from drinking alcohol, mandate
attendance in public (i.e., government) schools, and even force you into
the military to possibly die in battle thousands of miles away from
American shores. In short, you need to be interested in government because
government officials can adversely affect your lives in the most serious
of ways.
Since government at its basic level is force, what should the role of
government be? After all, with force government can act in just about any
way that we allow it to, right or wrong. Philosophers have debated the
question for centuries, but a sound rule of thumb that has emerged is that
government should defend our rights, while at the same time not violate
them.
In other words, government should protect us from the violence of
others but not initiate violence against us. The government should not be
allowed to steal from us, it should not be allowed to enslave us, and it
should not be allowed to murder us. In short, it should protect our
fundamental rights but not transgress them.
It sounds pretty straightforward, doesn’t it? Government should not
prevent any activity that does not violate the rights of another person.
However, you’ll see, in fact, that most of the things that government
does today violate individual liberty in one way or another. Let’s look
at an example.
The drug war
One example that all of you are probably familiar with is the drug war.
This ought to be an easy one for all of you. You probably have friends who
have done drugs, and you may have even heard of undercover narcs in your
school. I am certainly not telling you that doing drugs is okay because,
as you have been told a million times by your parents and teachers, drugs
can and do kill people. At the very least, they can numb your brain and
make you stupid. However, what your parents and teachers do not tell you
is that government has no right to throw anyone in jail for doing drugs.
If someone sits in front of his television and smokes a joint, whose
rights has he violated? Nobody’s!
Last year alone, more than 1.8 million people were arrested on drug
offenses and, with the exception of those who used violence against
others, not one of them deserves to be behind bars. Plain and simple,
drugs should be legalized, even the hard ones. As long as people don’t
initiate force against others in the process, people should be free to do
unhealthy things. That’s what genuine freedom is all about it.
There are many more examples of the abuses that we suffer at the hands
of government, but as long as you learn this one lesson — that
government is the biggest threat to the freedom of its citizenry —
you are well on the way to becoming an educated citizen and a patriot.
There are no parting words more appropriate with which I could leave you
than these words attributed to George Washington: “Government is not
reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous
servant and a fearful master.”
That is why you should pay attention to government.
The Future of Freedom Foundation

next: Medical Marijuana
|