 It
wasn’t long after World War II ended that U.S. troops were once again
involved in another foreign war. This time, however, there was a notable
difference. After North Korea invaded the South in 1950, President
Truman intervened with U.S. combat troops in a United Nations “police
action.” There was no congressional declaration of war. There was not
even the slightest pretense of consulting Congress.
On five different occasions, the United States had declared war on
other countries: the War of 1812, the Mexican War (1848), the
Spanish-American War (1898), World War I (1917), and World War II (1941
against Japan, Germany, and Italy; 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary, and
Romania).
That Congress issued these declarations of war doesn’t necessarily mean that they should
have been issued. It just means that it was recognized that a major
military engagement called for a real declaration of war by the Congress
according to Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.
But not only did over 36,000 American soldiers needlessly die in the
Korean War when we entered that conflict under the auspices of the UN,
the results of this unconstitutional action are still with us today.
Since the armistice was signed in 1953, a day has not gone by when the
United States has not had thousands of troops stationed in South Korea.
There are at least 25,000 U.S. soldiers still in Korea, some no doubt
the grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in the Korean War.
But this Korean intervention also set a terrible precedent, as no
declaration of war has ever been issued since World War II even though
the United States has been involved in many military conflicts since
then, with some of them being major wars like Vietnam, Iraq, and
Afghanistan.
A War for Our Own Good
Aside from U.S. military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and now Uganda, there is currently raging another
destructive and unconstitutional war at home. And this one has been
going on for over forty years.
It was just over 40 years ago that President Richard Nixon began the
federal war on drugs. Said Nixon: “In order to fight and defeat this
enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.” The President
declared drug abuse to be “America’s public enemy number one” and “a
national emergency.” He continued his military rhetoric in a special
message to Congress on drug abuse prevention and control, calling for a
“full-scale attack” on drug abuse “on many fronts.” To wage “an
effective war against heroin addiction,” he called for “a worldwide
escalation in our existing programs for the control of narcotics
traffic.” Legislation then recently passed in Congress provided “a sound
base for the attack on the problem of the availability of narcotics in
America.”
None of this means that the federal government didn’t fight against
drugs and drug abuse before Nixon. Although all drugs in the United
States were legal up until the 20th century, the federal government
began introducing anti-narcotics laws in 1905. It was Nixon, though,
that formally declared war on drugs, appointed the first drug czar, and
oversaw the establishment of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 1973.
The drug war escalated again under President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s
with his wife’s “Just Say No” campaign. Although 15 states and the
District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical use, the
federal war on drugs continues unabated and enjoys wide bipartisan
support.
But what has the decades-long federal war on drugs actually
accomplished? How much has it cost? Has it curtailed drug abuse? Has it,
in fact, been any more successful at curtailing drug abuse than
Prohibition was at curtailing alcohol abuse? Why, unlike Prohibition,
was it imposed without a constitutional amendment granting the
government the power to do what it is doing? And should the power even
be granted through the amendment process, or should the federal war on
drugs be ended?
Another Failure
Even though the federal war against alcohol known as Prohibition was
constitutional owing to the 18th Amendment, most Americans would today
undoubtedly agree that its repeal via the 21st Amendment was a good
thing. But all of the unconstitutional wars the federal government is now waging — including its war on drugs — should be ended as well.
Like Prohibition, the war on drugs is a failure. It has failed to
prevent drug abuse or reduce the demand for drugs. It has failed to keep
drugs out of the hands of addicts and away from teenagers. It has
failed to stop the flow of drugs into the United States. According to
the latest National Survey on Drug Use and Health conducted by the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: “Drug use in
the United States increased in 2009, reversing downward trends since
2002.” There was even a spike in the number of Americans admitting to
using ecstasy and methamphetamine. The government’s own Government
Accountability Office has even said that the anti-drug D.A.R.E. program
has had “no statistically significant long-term effect on preventing
youth illicit drug use.”
But that’s not all.
The costs of the war on drugs exceed its benefits. According to a study
released last year by the Cato Institute, spending on the drug war tops
$41 billion a year.
The war on drugs has clogged the federal court system. Chief Justice
William Rehnquist made this point as far back as 1989. And in testimony
before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia remarked that “it was a great mistake to put routine drug
offenses into the federal courts.”
The war on drugs makes criminals out of too many otherwise law-abiding
Americans. The DEA made almost 31,000 arrests last year. According to
the FBI’s latest report on “Crime in the United States,” over 1.6
million Americans were arrested on drug charges in 2010, with almost
half of those arrests just for marijuana possession. There is one drug
arrest in the United States every 19 seconds.
The war on drugs unnecessarily swells prison populations. Over half of
the federal prison population and about 20 percent of the state prison
population are imprisoned due to the drug war.
The war on drugs hinders legitimate pain management. Physicians that
specialize in pain treatment face the increasing danger of arrest by the
DEA for prescribing their patients a dose of painkillers higher than
some government-set maximum.
The war on drugs has resulted in gross absurdities. Due to the Combat
Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, which is title VII of the USA PATRIOT
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, over-the-counter
allergy-relief products like Sudafed have been rationed and their use
criminalized because they contain pseudoephedrine, which might be used in the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine.
The war on drugs has destroyed financial privacy. Deposit more than
$10,000 in a bank account and you are a suspected drug trafficker.
Travelers carrying what the government thinks is too large an amount of
cash are subject to harassment and having their property confiscated.
The war on drugs has provided the rationale for militarizing local
police forces. The Pentagon has transferred millions of pieces of
surplus military gear to local police departments. The majority of the
130-150 raids per day conducted by SWAT teams are to serve search
warrants on people suspected of drug crimes.
The war on drugs has resulted in outrageous behavior by police in their
quest to arrest drug dealers. The city of Daytona Beach Shores was
recently ordered to pay four dancers and two bartenders (and their
attorneys) a total of $195,000 to settle a federal lawsuit after they
were illegally strip-searched during a raid on their club. The women
were strip-searched in front of a group of male officers after police
were told that some employees were selling prescription pills and other
illegal narcotics to patrons. A federal judge found that “the search
warrant did not authorize a strip search of anyone in the club.”
Picking Up New Powers
The war on drugs has eviscerated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition
against unreasonable searches and seizures. In the recent Supreme Court
case of Kentucky v. King, police were exonerated for kicking in
the door of the wrong apartment while they were making a “controlled
buy” of crack cocaine after they supposedly “smelled marijuana,” “could
hear people inside moving,” and believed that “drug related evidence was
about to be destroyed.”
The war on drugs has increased the size and scope of government. The
DEA has 10,000 employees in 226 offices organized in 21 divisions
throughout the United States and 83 foreign offices in 63 countries
around the world. There are even 300 chemists employed by the DEA. The
DEA’s Office of Aviation Operations has 100 airplanes and 124 pilots.
The war on drugs has served as a pretext for a war on individual
liberty and private property. According to Austrian economist Ludwig von
Mises:
Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But
once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to
protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious
objections can be advanced against further encroachments.
As soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not
interfere in any questions touching on the individual’s mode of life, we
end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest
detail.
Mises did not believe that government at any level should interject
itself into “the individual’s mode of life.” America’s Founding Fathers
did allow for some government involvement concerning the lives of the
people in the federal system they created — but not at the national
level. In The Federalist, No. 45, Madison summarized the division of powers between states and the federal government this way:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal
government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State
governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised
principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign
commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most
part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will
extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs,
concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the
internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Under the federal system devised by the Founding Fathers, the national
government is quite libertarian, while state governments are less so.
But the existence of multiple state governments, each operating under
their own state constitution, provides an important check against
enactment of “numerous and indefinite laws” — including drug laws — to
the point where the “individual’s mode of life” is restricted “down to
the smallest detail.” This is true not only because the actions of a
single state could not destroy the liberties of the entire nation, but
also because of the ability of individuals and businesses to move from
one state to another if a state were to become too repressive, thereby
encouraging states not to go too far in their taxation or regulation
policies.
Of course, this system is not working as intended because the federal
government has unconstitutionally usurped powers never intended for the
federal level, and the states are acting as if they are mere regional
subdivisions of the national government. The usurped powers include
those being used to wage the war on drugs, which entails Soviet-style
central planning by the federal government. Just as the government has a
calculation problem when it comes to central planning of the economy,
so also with drug regulation. The government can only arbitrarily decide
which drugs should be legal and which drugs shouldn’t be, which drugs
should be available to minors and which drugs shouldn’t be, which drugs
should be regulated and which drugs shouldn’t be, which drugs should be
sold by prescription and which drugs should be available over the
counter, which drugs should be classified as Schedule I and which drugs
should be classified as Schedule II, etc. The drug war fosters too much
trust in government planners, regulators, and bureaucrats.
None of these things matter to drug warriors, however, because taking
drugs is unhealthy and immoral. While I don’t deny the truth of those
conclusions in regard to non-medicinal drug usage, advocating a federal
war on drugs for these reasons teems with hypocrisy.
Facts Flying in the Face of Drug Laws
Figures vary, but tobacco use is supposed to cost the U.S. economy
nearly $200 billion annually in medical costs and lost productivity and
causes over 440,000 premature deaths each year from heart disease,
stroke, cancer, and chronic respiratory diseases. The number of annual
deaths caused by all drugs — legal and illegal — pales in comparison to
deaths caused by tobacco. It seems rather senseless for the federal
government to wage war on drugs instead of on tobacco.
Every negative thing that could be said regarding drug abuse could also
be said of alcohol abuse — and even more so. Alcohol abuse is one of
the leading causes of premature death in the United States. Alcohol is a
factor in many drownings, child abuse cases, sex crimes, violent
crimes, divorces, suicides, fires, and home, boating, and car accidents.
According to a study recently published in the prestigious medical
journal The Lancet, alcohol ranks as the “most harmful drug,”
beating out heroin, crack cocaine, and ecstasy. Yet, it is only the
decriminalization of drugs that conservatives like Bill Bennett call
“stupid and morally atrocious.”
And then there are the dangers of prescription drugs — that is, drugs
the government says are safe and legal. According to various articles in
the Journal of the American Medical Association, over 100,000
people die every year from drugs prescribed and administered by
physicians. And over two million Americans a year have in-hospital
adverse drug reactions. Thousands of people die every year from harmful
reactions to aspirin.
One doesn’t have to be a libertarian to recognize that the federal war
on drugs is a monstrous evil — incompatible with private property,
individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and limited
government — and an illogical and hypocritical activity of the federal
government.
One of the most powerful arguments against the federal war on drugs,
and one that has the broadest possible appeal, is the fact that a
federal drug war is blatantly unconstitutional. The powers delegated to
the national government are, as Madison said, “few and defined.”
Everything else is reserved to the states. And just to reinforce this
federal arrangement, the 10th Amendment declares that “the powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.”
The Constitution nowhere authorizes the national government to
prohibit, regulate, or otherwise concern itself with the nature,
quantity, or production of any substance Americans wish to inhale,
inject, or otherwise ingest into their bodies.
When the federal government sought to limit the use of alcoholic
beverages after World War I, it realized that it could only do so by
amending the Constitution. That is why the 18th Amendment to the
Constitution was adopted in 1919. If a constitutional amendment was
needed to prohibit the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of
intoxicating liquors,” then it should also be necessary in order for the
federal government to prohibit other substances like hallucinogenic
drugs.
Strong Stances
One of the few members of Congress who actually tries to follow the
Constitution in this matter is Representative and Republican
presidential candidate Ron Paul. Rep. Paul has cosponsored a bill, the
Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011 (H.R. 2306), to end the
federal ban on marijuana, not because he is a supporter of drug use,
wants more kids to try marijuana, or is indifferent to the dangers of
illicit drugs, but because he is a strict constitutionalist, a believer
in individual liberty and personal responsibility, and an advocate of
restoring the limited government established by the Founders.
Most members of Congress just don’t get it because they see themselves
as nannies and overseers entrusted to use the power of the federal
government to stamp out vice and keep Americans healthy and safe because
they are too stupid to take care of themselves.
Typical is Lamar Smith (R-Texas), House Judiciary Committee Chairman,
who vowed to block Paul’s bill. “Instead of encouraging the use of
marijuana,” said Smith, “we should strengthen enforcement of federal
drug laws to protect Americans from the devastating effects of drug
use.” There is, unfortunately, wide bipartisan support in Congress for
continuing the federal war on drugs for another 40 years.
It is members of Congress like Smith that are more dangerous to Americans than illegal drugs. As C. S. Lewis has written:
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s
cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be
satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us
without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
If any war on drugs is to be fought, it will have to be on the state
level. Any laws or regulations relating to the production, sale,
distribution, possession, or use of drugs — whether we agree with them
or not — should be passed by state legislatures, not the U.S. Congress
or its agents like the FDA, DEA, or the Office of National Drug Control
Policy. No American who has any respect for the Constitution,
federalism, and the limited government established by the Founders
should endorse, support, or defend the federal war on drugs, regardless
of his political persuasion, religion, or moral code. |
No comments:
Post a Comment