Presidential Mulligans

I applaud Bob Barr on his reevaluation concerning the War on Drugs. It would be nice to think that given enough information and maturation, anyone would logically come to this conclusion.

Here's what Mr. Barr had to say about this:

"I Was Wrong About The War On Drugs-It's A Failure"
Posted June 10, 2008 | 10:59 AM (EST)

I'll admit it, just five years ago I was "Public Enemy Number 1" in the eyes of the Libertarian Party. In my 2002 congressional race for Georgia's Seventh District, the Libertarian Party ran scathing attack ads against my stand on Medical Marijuana.

Today, I am their presidential nominee and will represent libertarians at the top of the ticket on November 4th.

Huh?

That's right, Bob Barr, formerly the War on Drugs loving, Wiccan mocking, Clinton impeaching Republican is the presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party.

Now, you may be asking how this happened and my answer is simple: "The libertarians won."

For more than three decades, the Libertarian Party and small "l" libertarians have done their part to prove to America that liberty is the answer to most of the problems that we face today. Over the past several years, I was one of the many people influenced by this small party.

Whether through the free market or by simply allowing families to make their own decisions regarding the education of their children, libertarians have taught us that liberty does truly work.

In stark contrast, when government attempts to solve our societal problems, it tends to create even more of them, often increasing the size and depth of the original problem. A perfect example of this is the federal War on Drugs.

So far, so good. Mr. Barr goes on to say:

For years, I served as a federal prosecutor and member of the House of Representatives defending the federal pursuit of the drug prohibition.

Today, I can reflect on my efforts and see no progress in stopping the widespread use of drugs. I'll even argue that America's drug problem is larger today than it was when Richard Nixon first coined the phrase, "War on Drugs," in 1972.

America's drug problem is only compounded by the vast amounts of money directed at this ongoing battle. In 2005, more than $12 billion dollars was spent on federal drug enforcement efforts while another $30 billion was spent to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders.

How odd that Mr. Barr would reference 1972 and Richard Nixon because, according to wikipedia:

In 1972, President Richard Nixon commissioned the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse to produce an in-depth report on marijuana. The report, "Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding," found marijuana prohibition constitutionally suspect and stated regardless of whether the courts would overturn prohibition of marijuana possession, the executive and legislative branches have a duty to obey the Constitution.[2] "It’s a matter of individual freedom of choice,” said ACLU President Nadine Strossen in an interview. "Does that mean they should do it? Not necessarily, not any more than somebody should smoke or drink or eat McDonald’s hamburgers."[15]

Financial incentives

Many proponents of marijuana decriminalization have argued partially decriminalizing marijuana would largely reduce costs of maintaining the criminal justice and law enforcement systems, while fully decriminalizing marijuana to allow the cultivation and sale would generate a substantial amount of income from taxing marijuana sales. Other arguments assert that the funds saved from marijuana decriminalization could be used to enforce laws for other, more serious and violent crimes.

What this seems to tell me is that as far back as 1972, studies have shown that drug prohibition was not the way to go, either constitutionally or economically. How many lives and how much money would have been saved had the drug warriors either paid attention to these studies or at the very least, had taken such studies into consideration rather than plowed ahead regardless of future consequences.

Bob Barr was employed by the CIA from 1970 through 1978; surely with the rumors of CIA involvement in drug smuggling in Southeast Asia as well as a presidential commission concerning drug prohibition, there would have been at least some talk around the water cooler concerning drugs-thereby giving a certain CIA employee an opportunity to research the studies and apply that knowledge when considering the Constitutionality of prohibition. It strains credibility to assume that Mr. Barr just recently came to the conclusion that the War on Drugs was a failure when he, and many other policy makers, had this sort of information available to them decades ago.

If I have the chance to put a question to Mr. Barr in person, my question would be the following:

What, if anything, will be done to rectify the situation suffered by those whose life, liberty and employment have been negatively impacted by the War on Drugs? To those who are still rotting in prison, those unable to secure employment or college scholarships and grants; those whose possessions-land, homes and bank accounts; were confiscated by drug warriors? Do you tell them, "My bad! But now I've seen the light and I want to start with a clean slate!" Who will clean the slate for these people? Who will give them a do-over?

You have also backed off from your vote for the Patriot Act in 2001, saying that you have since been working to having it amended. On April 4, 2007 in an interview with Salon you said:

We've been talking about civil liberties since 9/11. You voted for the Patriot Act -- what role did that play in any loss of civil liberties, and what do you think of that vote now?

It's a vote that I would not cast now, knowing how the powers in the act have been abused, and [seeing] how vast not just the Patriot Act powers but other powers that the administration has simply taken for itself or that Congress has granted have increased dramatically the power of the federal government. These are of great concern to me, and that's why I worked very strenuously in '05 and '06 to try to have the Patriot Act amended and some of its provisions that were up for renewal rescinded. That's why I've worked so very hard, also over the last few years, to bring attention to the real problems, where you have unfettered power for an administration, any administration, such as was granted in the Patriot Act. These are very serious problems, and even though there were some worthwhile provisions in the Patriot Act, which is why I voted for it back in '01, looking back on it now and seeing how it has been used and abused since then makes very clear in my mind that that act should not have been passed in the form that it was.

In voting for the Patriot Act in 2001, I would have assumed that would mean that Mr. Barr read the entire bill that he was voting on, and thus would have known some of the more odious aspects of the bill prior to voting. According to A Brief Analysis of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, Also Known as Patriot Act II
By Alex Jones
www.infowars.com
(Posted Feb 10, 2003)

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on October 27, 2001. The first Patriot Act was universally decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum. William Safire, while writing for the New York Times, described the first Patriot Act's powers by saying that President Bush was seizing dictatorial control.

On February 7, 2003 the Center for Public Integrity, a non-partisan public interest think-tank in DC, revealed the full text of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. The classified document had been leaked to them by an unnamed source inside the Federal government. The document consisted of a 33-page section by section analysis of the accompanying 87-page bill.

There were rumors buzzing all over concerning whether members of Congress actually read the Patriot Act prior to voting on it-of course we know that at least one member refused to vote on something he had not read; Ron Paul voted against the despicable legislation before it was cool to do so. Far from being politically expedient, he was a lone voice amongst the clamor for the perception of security in exchange for liberty. Ron Paul has not had to ask for any mulligans because he refuses to vote first, ask questions later.

Even when Mr. Barr was retracting his voting record on the Patriot Act, in testimony submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 22, 2004 he said:

The commission’s recommendation refers primarily to the Patriot Act, which, because of the speed with which it was passed and the atmosphere surrounding its consideration, contained several unnecessary and potentially abusive expansions of government law enforcement or intelligence-gathering authority.

...

Before continuing, it is important to note that I voted for the Patriot Act and continue to support portions of it. I did so for three main reasons. First, much of the Patriot Act is largely non-controversial and simply updates existing laws to reflect the new challenges of 21st century technology. Second, I took the administration at its word when it suggested the more wide-ranging powers in the law would be used exclusively for counter-terrorism, and were only necessary given the extraordinary threat Al Qaeda and like groups represent.

Non-controversial? Really-do you still believe that, Mr. Barr?

How ironic that Mr. Barr's mea culpa should be both the War on Drugs as well as the War on Terror (inasmuch as the Patriot Act is concerned) because had he paid attention to Ron Paul way back in 2001 when he gave a speech in the House of Representatives, you would not being having to eat humble pie now. Here is just a fraction of the prescient speech dated October 25, 2001-the day after the Patriot Act passed the House:

I would like to draw analogy between the drug war and the war against terrorism. In the last 30 years, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed war on drugs. This war has been used as an excuse to attack our liberties and privacy. It has been an excuse to undermine our financial privacy while promoting illegal searches and seizures with many innocent people losing their lives and property. Seizure and forfeiture have harmed a great number of innocent American citizens.

Another result of this unwise war has been the corruption of many law enforcement officials. It is well known that with the profit incentives so high, we are not even able to keep drugs out of our armed prisons. Making our whole society a prison would not bring success to this floundering war on drugs. Sinister motives of the profiteers and gangsters, along with prevailing public ignorance, keeps this futile war going.

A similar approach should be applied to our war on those who would terrorize and kill our people for political reasons. If the drug laws, and the policies that incite hatred against the United States, are not clearly understood and, therefore, never changed, the number of drug criminals and terrorists will only multiply.

We have promoted a foolish and very expensive domestic war on drugs for more than 30 years. It has done no good whatsoever. I doubt our Republic can survive a 30-year period of trying to figure out how to win this guerilla war against terrorism. Hopefully, we will all seek the answers in these trying times with an open mind and understanding.

Ron Paul: A Sad State of Affairs

In both the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, the victims of these wars are not given any do-overs, any mulligans...why should Bob Barr get a pass when the information that has led to his recent epiphanies was there all along; available for anyone who took the time to look at all the facts and not just parrot the party line.

I am always happy to see a convert, especially one from the Dark Side....I just wonder what makes him a better candidate for President than the candidate that never needed to convert?