Pubdate: Wed, 12 Mar 2008
Source: Dallas Morning News (TX)
Copyright: 2008 The Dallas Morning News
Contact:  http://www.dallasnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/117
Author: Mark Davis
Note: Mark Davis is heard weekdays from 8 to 11 a.m. on WBAP-AM, News/Talk 820.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)

BUCKLEY, LEGAL DRUGS AND MY EVOLVING VIEW

William F. Buckley Approved of Drug Legalization. Is It Time More 
Conservatives Reconsidered?

When William F. Buckley died Feb. 27, I thought a tribute column 
would be in order. But rather than walk in the footsteps of others 
who have sung his praises, I decided to do something that genuinely 
invokes his legacy of lively debate: a hard look at one of the most 
controversial views he held.

Mr. Buckley was a conservative's conservative, a modern icon of what 
it means to favor less government, lower taxes and free markets. But 
at some point in his intellectual journey, he adopted a view that 
alienated many of his admirers.

He announced his approval of drug legalization.

He asked America to get past the visceral revulsion they may have for 
the actual ingestion of drugs and settle on the policy issue: Should 
individual drug use be government's business?

A key difference between libertarians and conservatives is that 
libertarians don't try to outlaw what they don't like. From hate 
speech to pornography to bad parenting, the libertarian understands 
that freedom means some people will do things that the public may 
find objectionable.

Too often, mainstream conservatism responds by seeking to ban the 
things that rankle its sensibilities. Liberalism does this as well, 
when it tells us what mileage our cars must get or what kind of light 
bulbs we must use.

But conservatives and liberals are right when they observe that the 
people, through elected government, do have the right to ban things.

We can agree or disagree with such bans, but unless the Constitution 
precludes it - as with your religion, your speech or, yes, your gun - 
government can ban anything it chooses.

So to the merits: Do drugs rise to the level of something we have a 
compelling interest in outlawing?

Of course they do. A stoned public is a shared hazard that is 
everyone's business. It is not merely a story of some slob rolling a 
joint in his basement. If the drug user ventures beyond his walls, 
his impairment could lead to harm or death for others.

But Mr. Buckley would argue: Don't we already have laws for every bad 
thing people do on drugs? Enforce those laws, and we have an 
effective disincentive to recreational self-medication.

Or do we? Many users begin a night of drug use without a shred of ill 
intent, but their judgment becomes so perverted by the effects of 
their chosen substance that their wisdom and inhibitions vanish, 
pushing them out the door to pursue any number of sinister pursuits.

Fine, Mr. Buckley would say. Then they have a responsibility not to 
ingest those substances that they know will lead to bad decisions.

So far, he is winning. But his main reason for opposing the so-called 
war on drugs is that it has not worked.

I assert that it has, and it works to this very day. When a teenager 
is offered a handful of pills and says no out of fear of arrest, our 
drug laws work. When an adult refuses a joint at a party for fear of 
being busted on the way home, our drug laws work.

Mr. Buckley and other drug-law critics argue that we will never catch 
all, or even most, of our drug users and sellers. True. But if that 
is sufficient logic for scrapping the law, let's stop all traffic law 
enforcement and even CPS investigations. Surely we will never nab 
every speeder or abusive parent.

At least Mr. Buckley never parroted the dumbest thing the 
pro-legalization crowd says: "You won't see drug use go up if the 
laws are relaxed. All the people who want drugs are already using them."

What a crock. Millions of Americans refrain from dabbling in drugs 
only because they are law-abiding and do not wish to go to jail. Lift 
those constraints, and you will see new experimentation at every age level.

So does that justify keeping drugs illegal, or is drug use just one 
of those objectionable things that are the cost of a free society? 
Heaven knows we allow people to legally drink themselves into 
oblivion. Is that hypocrisy?

I'd love to deliver a bold, satisfying payoff line that ties a neat 
bow around the issue, but I have to work on this one. As I do, I hope 
to honor the discipline that William F. Buckley's example teaches:

Wisdom sometimes means seeking the ideal while realizing that 
sometimes all we get are flawed choices.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake