|
June 20, 2009
The cure is worse than the disease.
But is it conservative? A few days ago, M. Simon wrote a post ("Brain Dead Republican Enhances Party Image") that just stuck in my craw. A Republican congressman in Illinois (he's co-blogger TallDave's rep) has sponsored a new anti-marijuana bill to toughen penalties for with penalties of up to 25 years in prison for first-time offenses involving sales of "high potency" marijuana. More of the damned war on drugs. It constantly escalates, demanding ever more draconian sentences, ever more troops, with potential drug profits increasing accordingly. Naturally, dealers and smugglers constantly search for creative ways to concentrate and strengthen their product -- because shrinking the actual size of contraband is of paramount importance. (Heroin is less bulky than opium, methedrine is less bulky than benzedrine, powdered cocaine is less bulky than leaf, etc.) Simple economics dictates that tougher laws can be expected to lead to stronger drugs, which then create a demand for even tougher laws in the minds of people who believe in prison as an appetite deterrent. Simon's post led me to recall an ugly memory: When I lived in Berkeley I will never forget getting all enthused about a local Republican who challenged a Democratic incumbent in the outer Bay Area, and I actually got involved in the campaign, only to have the wind totally taken out of my sails by a live call from Newt Gingrich -- who urged the campaign supporters (me included) to do everything they could so this great guy could help Newt fight the war on drugs.It is not my purpose here to bash conservatives or conservatism. Sure, I could write a peevish post pointing the finger at some of conservatism's most iconic figures, like Ronald Reagan. There is no question that he did much to expand the war on drugs, and I always think of this when I hear him being wishfully spun as some sort of libertarian. There's no question that Reagan was an economic libertarian, but on the drug issue, his libertarian streak was MIA. But was Reagan's drug war truly "conservative"? Is the drug war conservative? Is the prohibition impulse a conservative or is it liberal? Or do the usual political labels fail? Considering that many leading liberals have long favored the drug war, and many leading conservatives (such as William F. Buckley) have long opposed it, might it be time to take it off the partisan table? Or would continued "bipartisanship" only allow it to fester and get worse, as it has over the years? Is it helpful to look at the origins of the Drug War? Before 1914 (and the Harrison Narcotics Act, which was the granddaddy of all future drug laws), Americans could walk into any pharmacy and buy whatever drugs they wanted without prescription. (Including Bayer's then wonder drug "Heroin.") Drug dependent Americans might have been morally weak, but "drug addicts" were not yet the vile degenerate criminals they was when the Hearst newspaper chain got through with them, and there was no such animal as "drug pusher." The Harrison Narcotics Act caused and accompanied a sea change in thinking. But was it conservative? Let's look at the Act's author, Francis Burton Harrison. He was a Wilsonian Democrat -- a solid progressive through and through: A member of the Democratic Party, Harrison was elected to the 58th United States Congress, and served from March 4, 1903, to March 3, 1905. In 1904, Harrison ran unsuccessfully for Lieutenant Governor of New York. Afterwards he resumed the practice of law. He was again elected to the 60th, 61st, 62nd and 63rd United States Congresses, and served from March 4, 1907 to September 3, 1913, when he resigned to become chief executive of the Philippines. His Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was eventually passed on December 17, 1914.Naturally, the liberal New York Times led the way: Before the Act was passed, on February 8, 1914 The New York Times published an article entitled "Negro Cocaine 'Fiends' Are New Southern Menace:Murder and Insanity Increasing Among Lower-Class Blacks" by Edward Huntington Williams which reported that Southern sheriffs had increased the caliber of their weapons from .32 to .38 to bring down Negroes under the effect of cocaine.Another champion of the HNA was Wilson's Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan. Another progressive, socialistic Democrat, he was the ultimate busybody. Sure, he was a deeply religious fundamentalist who opposed teaching evolution, but to call him a "conservative" by that standard is about as reasonable as making Mike Huckabee a spokesman for all conservatives. Besides, Bryan is "credited with turning around an entire [Democratic] political party," and his speeches have been described as leading "in a direct line to the progressive reforms adopted by 20th century Democrats." Turning to the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, it was mostly the brainchild of Harry J. Anslinger, and championed by William Randolph Hearst. Although it would appear that Anslinger was a conservative who truly believed marijuana to be a threat to the future of American civilization, his biographer maintained that he was an astute government bureaucrat who viewed the marijuana issue as a means for elevating himself to national prominence. The two positions are not necessarily incompatible.How conservative was this movement? I don't know. FDR was anything but a conservative, and as to Hearst, I think it's fair to call the man a populist yellow journalist and a supreme self-aggrandizer. At any rate, by the time of the Marihuana Tax Act, he was a solid FDR Democrat. Obviously, there have always been conservatives who supported the drug war, but it's my considered opinion is that in terms of its historic origins, the drug war is more a product of progressive statism than conservatism. It's been around so long that I suppose a conservative case can be made for keeping it. But that idea didn't impress William F. Buckley. Nor does it impress me, although I can hardly call myself a conservative. Can the drug war be broken free from conservatism as an issue? Can it be divorced from politics? Or is it like an incurable chronic disease which will always be around? I realize that many conservatives dislike irony, but I do find it ironic that waging the drug war is itself like waging a war against a chronic disease. The demand for drugs is a symptom. And the "treatment"? Imprisonment. Hardly what physicians would call "conservative treatment." posted by Eric on 06.20.09 at 10:08 AM
Comments
And why was Harrison pushing for opiate prohibition in America? The government of the day didn't feel comfortable making opiates illegal for the inferior races America governed and not for Americans as well. So there is a connection between Harrison's decamping to the Philippines and the Harrison narcotics act. M. Simon · June 21, 2009 03:27 AM Statists of all political flavors love the drug war, as its existence provides purported justification for further advances of tyranny. Clinton spent no political capital to seek a ceasefire, and it appears Obama will follow his example. The Republicans have made it clear they prefer the madness. Brett · June 21, 2009 10:39 AM The "conservative" element in the war on drugs is that irresponsible drug use is self-harming and harmful to society. The "liberal" element is an urge to control others' lives, it seems to me. Geoff Brown · June 22, 2009 02:48 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
June 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2009
May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
The dire Canadian threat
Legalization A Failure Limited Crooked Election Your rights are an "odd divergence from federal law" Applause For Obama HAPPY FATHER'S DAY! We Are On Our Own When fingers become keys The Woman Rocks Voting "Present" On Iran
Links
Site Credits
|
|
We smoke pot
We like it a lot
Don't spray our pot
with Paraquat
Those were the days, no?