Voter Guide for Critics of the War on Drugs
Jacob Sullum | February 3, 2006, 11:12am
The Drug Policy Alliance has a new voter guide--the first of its kind, as far as I know--that rates members of the House based on their positions vis-à-vis the war on drugs. It declares F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) a "villain" (no surprise there) and identifies nine "heroes": John Conyers (D-Mich.), Sam Farr (D-Calif.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), Ron Paul (R-Texas), Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), and Bobby Scott (D-Va.). Those choices were based on several criteria, including support for reform legislation that never made it to the floor, but the guide focuses on six votes:
1. House Vote 245 -- Amendment to HR 2862 on Justice Assistance Grants: increasing funding to the corrupt and troubled Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program (DPAN [Drug Policy Alliance Network] opposed);
2. House Vote 255 -- Amendment to HR 2862 on Medical Marijuana: prohibiting the DEA from undermining state medical marijuana laws (DPAN supported);
3. House Vote 264 -- Amendment to HR 2862 on Racial Conviction Distribution: requiring local narcotics taskforces that receive federal money to ban racial profiling and report their convictions by race (DPAN supported);
4. House Vote 329 -- Amendment to HR 3057 on the Andean Counterdrug Initiative: cutting funding to the counterproductive Andean Counterdrug Initiative (DPAN supported);
5. House Vote 344 -- Amendment to HR 3058 on the National Youth Anti-Drug Campaign: increasing funding to the failed anti-marijuana media campaign (DPAN opposed); and
6. House Vote 435 -- S 45: Drug Addiction Treatment: lifting the 30-patient limit on group practices for treating people who struggle with addiction to heroin and other opioids through buprenorphine-assisted approaches (DPAN supported).
According to DPA's Bill Piper, "One is about states' rights, another is about the deregulation of drug treatment, three are about increased funding for federal programs, and one is about racial profiling. Five out of these six issues could be seen as boosting conservative goals, yet Democrats were overwhelmingly more likely to vote the right way than Republicans."
[via the Drug War Chronicle]
James Anderson Merritt | February 4, 2006, 4:09pm | #
Mr. F. Le Mur sez,
"It's too bad the Constitution doesn't mention anything like a 'right to privacy,' because it'd be the best of the many reasons why the WOD is illegal."
Oh, but it does!
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." -Amendment 4, US Constitution
"No person ... shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself..." -Amendment 5, US Constitution
While I would conclude that, taken together, these two provisions do not establish a broad, general "right to privacy," they do establish a right to privacy for acts and information that the government would have to commit trespass to determine. The right is abridged whenever the trespass would be "reasonable," but the definition of "reasonable" (warranted, justified by probable cause, sworn before a court) IS given, and the standard for official violation of privacy is pretty high (if only our elected leaders would respect it!).
I think that there really IS "something like" a right to privacy in the Constitution. Indeed, I would go so far to say that the Constitution protects a right to privacy, subject to specific limitations. Because of this, I think it is also safe to say that the Constitution necessarily implies a presumption of privacy, much as it implies a presumption of liberty. (If you think about it, liberty and privacy go hand-in-hand; it is hard to imagine broad, true liberty in a human society, without the ability to keep some things out of public view. "The Invisible Man" illustrates the argument that being completely invisible, thus able to act without having to take responsibility, is the ultimate liberty and the ultimate, terrible power.) Obviously, the goal of the Constitution in general is to limit the government and uphold individual liberty. Just as obviously, to me at least, the goal of the provisions quoted above is to safeguard personal privacy -- at least against government intrusion. So in cases that push the envelope, I would hope that the Supreme Court would give the benefit of the doubt to the presumption of privacy, and not let the government violate a citizen's privacy merely because that is the convenient or efficient thing to do, but only as necessary to carry out a properly warranted search or seizure. The point is that it is UNREASONABLE to violate individual privacy unless someone is personally suspected, with sworn, probable cause, of committing a serious offense. Otherwise, the government is to leave hands off.
I agree that, in a just world, the right to (and general presumption of) privacy should be a cornerstone of the compelling argument against the War on Drugs. So should the Constitution's clear presumption of liberty. So why isn't it, already?
I don't know about you, but I actually hold out a little bit of hope (not much, but a little), that reservations about stare decicis, which figured so prominently in the hearings prior to Justice Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court, could someday figure prominently in the overturning of court precedents that ran counter to the presumption of liberty, the presumption/right to privacy, and a common-sense interpretation of the Commerce Clause. It's a scary thing for the Roe supporters, to think that their favorite decision might be overturned, although, having read the decision, I cannot see how Justices would negate the right to privacy I mentioned above, on which Roe relies. I think Roe is safe on that basis, though time will tell. On the other hand, if the court is willing to revisit and toss out old precedents, AND it is willing to acknowledge and uphold the right to privacy and presumption of liberty that any fool can see, AND the court can have the courage to abandoned the tortured logic that has contorted the Commerce Clause for nearly a century, we might begin to see some sanity in the War on Drugs. I grant you, that's an uncomfortably long list of IFs and ANDs. I have been so disappointed by recent court holdings (Raich and Kelo at the top of the list), that I can't say I am very optimistic. Still, there might be no chance at all of relief from the courts, if Mr. Bush's nominees were slaves to precedent.
Talk of the Courts aside, I am now of the belief that, if we want sanity in our Federal and State governments, we must do the very hard work of changing Congress and the Legislatures. The first step is to "hit them upside the haid with a 2-by-4, just to get their attention." To me, that means firing all incumbents, "good" and "bad" alike. To the "bad" ones, we say "good riddance." To the "good" ones, we say, "thanks for your service ... time to live in the world you made as the Founders intended ... come back next time if you want to ride again."
Step 2 is to elect new guys, who are pledged to some sanity. For example, and at the top of the list: ending the War on Drugs and changing national course so we can end the War on Terror soon. Candidate guides, similar to the DPA's incumbent guide will help with this effort.
Step 3 is to fire incumbents who don't measure up. Future editions of the DPA's Voter Guide and similar publications will help.
Step 4 is to periodically return incumbents to private life, so we can get fresh blood, and they can live in the world they created.
Again, this is an uncomfortably long list of contingencies. Obviously, the public has shown little memory or stamina to pursue a program like this for very long. But to scoffers I ask: doesn't this beat terrible war or bloody revolution, which seem to me as if they may be very close around the corner, if things don't change for the better fairly soon? Our system provides a means of relief, but we must USE it, and quit whining that there is nothing we can do.
