Cracking Down
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
John Schwenkler notes that Rahm Emanuel was and is a drug war hawk and this has been leading some libertarians to expect continuity in drug policy, but it’s not as if this should come as a big surprise. In his Latin America policy speech in Miami earlier this year, Obama made clear that he was entirely on board with current policy, and why wouldn’t he be? Everyone is probably already tired of hearing me say this, but it seems as if it needs to be said yet again: Obama is extraordinarily conventional in almost all of his policy views and he normally hews to the establishment line. To make the point about Emanuel clear: his appointment tends to confirm what we already know about Obama’s policy views; it is not evidence of a sudden shift away from views that he has held in the past. It is because Obama is a drug war hawk that Emanuel’s views on this subject will simply reinforce Obama’s own, and the same is true about other subjects.
Obama has stated his support for Plan Colombia, which is the clearest expression of militarized interdiction and combining anti-narcotics efforts with meddling foreign policy, but heavy-handed, useless drug war tactics will not be limited to other countries. As he said in May:
We have to do our part. And that is why a core part of this effort will be a northbound-southbound strategy. We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. But we must address the material heading south as well. As President, I’ll make it clear that we’re coming after the guns, we’re coming after the money laundering, and we’re coming after the vehicles that enable this crime. And we’ll crack down on the demand for drugs in our own communities, and restore funding for drug task forces and the COPS program. We must win the fights on our own streets if we’re going to secure the region.
Not to worry–infringing your constitutional liberties is necessary to make sure that farmers in Colombia cannot make a living, so it’s all for the greater good.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
I’m not exactly sure how the “War on Drugs” violates the Constitution (unless 4th Amendment search-and-siezure protections are somehow violated by this). I mean, as long as everything (guns, drugs, money) is moving in interstate commerce or across national borders, Congress has the constitutional power to legislate and federal agents have the authority to enforce for the same reason federal agents enforce immigration laws instead of, say, Texas state police.
Whether or not Congress *should* legislate is another matter, as are cases where no drugs, guns, or money are moving in interstate or international commerce (which takes Congress’ jurisdiction away). But it seems that the federal government *does* have the Constitutional power to prosecute the “War on Drugs” without those exceptions.
What am I missing?
Of course it is exactly infringements on 4th Amendment protections that are at the heart of objections to the drug war. These protections are badly undermined in practice. Well, there’s that and the attacks on property rights that are carried out in the name of enforcement. The drug war has vested law enforcement agencies with tremendous, largely unchecked power to seize the property of anyone even remotely connected to drugs, and the arrest and imprisonment of people for possession is an example of the state curtailing liberty without much justification.
As Balko has said, “The drug war has wrought the zero tolerance mindset, asset forfeiture laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and countless exceptions to criminal defense and civil liberties protections.”
Oh, ok. So it is more “unconstitutional in practice” than per se unconstitutional like, say, wars fought without a Congressional declaration.
Gotcha.
The drug bugaboo has led to a permanent moral panic. This panic, in turn, has justified an expansion of prosecutorial and police power, and a “prison industrial complex.”
The same is true of “child abuse and neglect”–moral panic breeds political exploitation and leads to the creation of an industry, with a bureaucracy, professional components in universities and civil service, and an ability to blackmail the opposition.
One is forced always to genuflect to the truths that both drug abuse and child abuse can be real evils. Meanwhile, Nanny gets ever more powerful and more predatory, all For Our Own Good, of course.
[...] the whole thing. I sure am glad that Obama’s views on drug policy are so terrific. A video discussion of the incident is embedded [...]