The 112th 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
|