Having received the president’s plan for ridding the country of illicit drugs, the nation is in the throes of determining how best to carry out this worthy objective. The Republican administration is willing to commit “X” billion dollars to the effort and the Democratic opposition, not to be out-done, has “seen” the president’s “X” billion and raised him “Y” billion. It is partisan politics as usual.
Like everything else that the government does, this operation will involve lots of squabbling amongst powerful members of congress anxious to get their share of the pork.
While watching the legislation evolve, keep an eye on the implementation proposals. Some do have merit. In other cases, the cure may be worse than the affliction. I personally believe that education has, by far, the most potential for success. Other proposals are down-right frightening. Some of the very same people that opposed U.S. military intervention to stem the spread of Marxism in our hemisphere are more than willing to send troops to foreign soil to combat the drug lords. (And won’t they be oh-so-surprised to discover that Marxist guerillas have long been using drug money to finance their operations!)
One thing we can be sure of is that the military will be more involved in drug interdiction efforts. The President in his address to the nation mentioned use of “defense technology.” Sure, we can eradicate drugs; just declare martial law and turn the storm-troopers loose.
One amendment to the anti-drug bill being worked out in our nation’s capitol actually proposed the expedient of simply shooting down any plane suspected of carrying drugs. Doubtless this would be done with kinder, gentler air-to-air missles. Look for a thousand points of light emanating from searchlights on a helicopter gun-ship coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
A War On Drugs is actually a war on people. People use drugs. In Phoenix, they can’t nail the drug kingpins so they’ve taken to arresting the “casual user.” The public service spots say, “Do drugs, do time.” The strategy is to frighten people into not using drugs.
Which would you prefer: people who avoid drugs because they have the good sense not to use them or people who want to but are just afraid of getting caught?
The thought of spasms and cardiac arrest is a lot more sobering than the prospect of getting finger-printed and booked. Just tell people the truth. The educational approach will prove far more effective than the heavy-handed approach.
Things can easily get out-of-hand (correction: more out-of-hand) and all with the best of intentions. Even now, cars, boats, aircraft and even homes have been seized if there is even a suspicion that they have been used in drug trafficking. This happens before a conviction, before a trial and even sometimes before an indictment. Not long ago I saw on the evening news that a Lear jet was seized from a man in Scottsdale because it was believed that it had been purchased with money paid to him for aircraft purchased by drug traffickers. Guilt by association has replaced presumption of innocence and due process.
How would you like to be arbitrarily stopped by law enforcement officers on the street and “patted down” (frisked) for concealed weapons or searched for drugs or “contraband?” ‘Would you mind showing us what’s in your purse, Ma’am”? “Empty your pockets please, Sir”.
Sound far-fetched? Think again. This is essentially what happens at so-called “sobriety checkpoints.” With no reason whatever to suspect that you are intoxicated, you may one day on the way to Auntie Em’s place find yourself stopped at a roadblock and forced to prove that you are not drunk. Some people have protested this un-warranted (pun intended) search while others don’t particularly mind or think the inconvenience is a small price to pay if it will help get drunks off the roads. Those who would laud such acts, however, are losing sight of the big picture.
They are giving up, without protest, one of their most valued rights. Where is the probable cause, where is the search warrant, where is the 4th Amendment protection? Well, the constitution just doesn’t seem to apply in this case. Why not? Aha! You see, some dim-bulb but crafty judge has ruled that although the 4th amendment does in fact prohibit unreasonable searches, stopping motorists for sobriety checks IS NOT unreasonable since public safety is involved.
Got the picture? If it’s (alleged to be) for our own good, the Constitution of the United States of America can be ignored. Your rights forfeited.
It is a very short – indeed, teeny – step from stopping motorists and making them prove their innocence to stopping pedestrians on the street for the very same “good-of-society” reason. Another small step and they’re entering your home – again without a warrant. But it’s OK because The Public Good is more important than any individual’s rights, remember?
Time after time the rights of individual citizens are subordinated to the best interests of “society.” But, hey, wait a minute! I’m society; you’re society. Auntie Em and Joe Sixpack are all part of “society.” How can violating the rights of the people making up society be in society’s best interests?
A recent TV news story remarked that East Germans are fleeing to the west by the thousands despite the fact that, as Iron Curtain countries go, East Germany isn’t too bad. It was also noted that there was “no drug problem and very little street crime.” It is also a police state. We, on the other hand, are (supposed to be) a free and open society where We The People have certain inalienable rights.
Yes, let’s encourage people to stop using drugs. Just don’t do it by becoming more like East Germany.