About Us

Name: T.P. Beh
Email: tpbeh@aol.com
Name: Cicero76
Location: Centennial, CO
Biography
Name: Rocky Mountain...
Email: townhall@rockymountainfoundation.net Biography
Name: John Dendahl
Email: j3dendahl@swcp.com
Name:
Email: fless@sbcglobal.net
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Don't Legalize Drugs

As a fan of Tom Tancredo, I find it very disappointing to hear him advocating for the legalization of drugs. One expects this kind of thing from liberals but when a conservative starts promoting government approval and regulation of dangerous substances, something is very wrong. In the words of former Senator Patrick Moynihan, by attempting to “define deviancy down” Tancredo may indeed be committing political suicide, and, while that would be regrettable, it wouldn’t compare to the negative consequences such a foolish policy would have on our society.

Certainly, the so-called war against drugs has not been overly successful. While hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on arresting and incarcerating drug dealers and users every year, the demand seems to continue to rise—along with the influence of criminal groups like the Mexican drug cartels. So, why not save that money and allow government to tax and make a profit from the drug trade by legalizing it, like alcohol?

In the first place, while government surely spends a lot of money on drug crimes, I’m not sure such efforts could truly be characterized as a concerted “war on drugs.” Rather than a war, the effort against drugs in the U.S. is more like a disjointed, uncoordinated, hit-or-miss endeavor run by the Keystone Cops. In fact, since Bill Bennett was drug czar under George H.W Bush, I can’t recall a serious attempt being made by the federal government in this arena. While every president since then has had a drug czar, does anyone believe a strong anti-drug policy was pursued by “I didn’t inhale” Bill Clinton? George Bush was obviously preoccupied by the war in Iraq, and does anyone think that fighting drugs is one of Obama’s priorities? In short, there hasn’t been a serious effort to fight drugs in this country for over 20 years, so despite the money being spent it’s a misnomer to call it a “war.” Instead of throwing in the towel on this non-war, perhaps Mr. Tancredo should advocate for a true national engagement on this issue.

The social cost of legalizing drugs on our society would also be immense—and likely end up costing us even more than it is now—and not just in dollars. Whatever the government legalizes receives de facto moral approval. It sends the message, as with abortion, that it is ethically okay, which only serves to encourage the practice. Before abortion was legalized in this country, abortions ranged in the thousands. Afterward, it averaged over a million a year. Legalizing drugs would have the same effect. Instead of millions, it’s likely that tens of millions would become users. Having smoked “weed” in my youth (a fact of which I am not proud), I know that it can have a very negative impact on an individual, distorting one’s thinking and creating a “dead-headed” outlook on life characterized by loopy passivity. Do we really want to have a nation full of lazy, empty-headed “stoners,” smoking grass and having no qualms about it? Another side effect of marijuana is a sense of paranoia that is heightened by the fact that it is illegal, which is a good thing. It’s an incentive to stop. Diminishing that sense of guilt and fear of being caught does nothing but encourage more drug use, which is another reason to oppose legalization.

Marijuana—as everyone who has used it knows—is a “gateway drug.” A seemingly innocuous (initially) way of getting high, it almost inevitably leads to greater drug use. Since all drugs have a diminishing return over time it takes more and more to get the same sense of euphoria, leading to smoking more and/ or seeking stronger weed. That quest usually doesn’t end with marijuana. It commonly leads to using things like hashish, peyote, ecstasy, crystal “meth” or cocaine, which in turn may lead to the use of hallucinogenics, like mescaline and LSD—and even heroin. The truth is, if we are going to legalize marijuana, we will ultimately have to do the same for all of these drugs. After all, the rationale will already be in place: just think of all the money the government can save/make! Along the way, we will continue to “define deviancy down” in our society, until virtually nothing is considered wrong anymore. Hey, if making drugs legal is good, what about prostitution?

Perhaps most disappointing about Tom Tancredo’s push (no pun intended) to legalize marijuana and other drugs is the immorality of the position, especially for a professing Christian. Unlike alcohol, which has food value and doesn’t necessarily cause drunkenness, drugs always impair one’s mind and distort one’s consciousness. That’s the only reason for using them. But they come at a high price, often impairing the user’s life, creating addicts who commit serious crimes to maintain their habit and destroying lives and families. While it doesn’t specifically mention drugs, the Bible condemns drunkenness and by extension all things that distort one’s ability to function with a clear mind and cause addiction. Such behavior is bad for the individual and unhealthy for society. Does Tom Tancredo really want to advocate for something so morally wrong and destructive to our nation? If so, his political future probably is over.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sonia Sotomayor: The ironies abound

U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) will apparently be among those shepherding Judge Sonia Sotomayor through the confirmation process. Michelle Malkin included this McCaskill statement in a recent op-ed:
 
"If you look at what this woman has been through, and the obstacles that she has had to overcome, I think she does have a richly, uniquely American experience that makes her incredibly qualified to pass judgment on some of the most important cases in our country. Overcoming incredible odds, and I think that is an experience that is new to the courts. There have been a lot of privileged people that have landed on the Supreme Court. The fact that she has lived the life of the common American, trying to grow up in public housing, reaching for scholarships, reaching for the courtroom as a courtroom prosecutor, all of those things will make her a better and wiser judge. And I don’t think that is identity politics. I think that is the American experience.”
 
The ironies here are magnificent. First, it was another, certainly more distinguished, Missouri U.S. senator, John Danforth, who managed Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation. That was the one Thomas called a "high-tech lynching" while he was still in the witness chair and yet to receive a vote from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
 
Second, when stacked up against Thomas's accomplishments and life story, Sotomayor looks like a midget born with a silver spoon in her mouth. For any U.S. senator, let alone one from John Danforth's Missouri, to call Sotomayor's "an experience that is new to the courts" speaks volumes as to her pathetic sense of this country's recent political history.
 
Third, McCaskill's party has a disgraceful record in dealing with race as to those nominated and selected to serve in important positions in our Nation's courts. In its collective view, a black or Latino dare not take a step off Left Farm. Thomas would be the premiere example if he hadn't finally achieved confirmation. Another Latino beside whose life story Sotomayor's also pales in comparison, Miguel Estrada, was strung out for years after having been nominated by Bush 43 to serve on the D.C. Court of Appeals. He finally threw in the towel and went back to his highly successful private law practice.
 
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) had on his website for many months the red herring he read into the Senate record as an apologia for his refusal to help shut down the Democrats' filibuster and give Estrada an up-or-down vote. He took it down, but we have it here.
 
Yes, of course, Sotomayor should have her hearings. One hopes all involved will treat those with more respect than was shown, say, Clarence Thomas. But lefties in the U.S. Senate and their proxies all through the mainstream media long ago forfeited any right to shake their crooked fingers at the rest of us and unctuously claim that poor, pitiable Sonia Sotomayor, who has overcome so much in her "uniquely American experience" as Sen. McCaskill calls it, doesn't need to stand tall and tell us how and why she, as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, will insist on color-blind upholding of the rule of law.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Judge Sotomayor: Tom Tancredo v David Shuster on "Hardball"

In another of MSNBC's regular foaming-at-the-mouth confrontations with anyone critical of the Obama adminstration, David Shuster takes on U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) in discussing Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Tancredo points out that Sotomayor has a lot of 'splainin' to do concerning past remarks and associations that imply sexism, racism or both.
 
Tancredo's former colleague in Congress, Rep. Susan Molinari (R-N.Y.), is also on the show and treated with kid gloves by Shuster because she pretty much refuses to say anything critical of Sotomayer. Both Tancredo and Molinari, however, strike at one of the most vulnerable spots in their opposition, the Senate Democrats' unconscionable (and arguably racist: they couldn't abide nomination by a Republican of this distinguished Latino) treament of Miguel Estrada, Pres. George W. Bush's nominee for a position on the D.C. Court of Appeals.
 
See Tancredo go at it with Shuster here.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Picture Worth Well Over 1,000 Words

Thanks to Prohibition II, the United States' so-called "war" on drugs, American drug users supply most of the money supporting Mexico's drug cartels. That the cartels threaten that country's ability to maintain a government is well known. Too bad we Americans can't claim it's just Mexico's problem and go blithely through our own lives in comfort and peace.

We provide here a link to an interactive map of Mexican drug trafficking activity in the United States. One can use buttons on the map to expand or contract the scale, move map sections around, and segregate reported activities of several different cartels.
 
The introduction: "In the past three years, more than 230 U.S. cities have reported the presence of Mexican drug trafficking organizations. These organizations ... [affect] every region of the country."

See it here
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cato Institute blog on Tancredo's Call for Drug Legalization

In an address given May 20, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) called for change in federal law to give the states – laboratories of democracy – latitude to consider drug legislation. Tancredo called the War on Drugs a failure and expressed concern about collateral damage, especially drug cartel violence plaguing Mexico and spreading northward, discussed elsewhere in this blog.
 
TV coverage on Denver's ABC affilitate can be seen here.
 
Cato Institute's senior fellow Doug Bandow complimented Tancredo, albeit left-handedly, in a post here.
 
Unfortunately, Bandow took a gratuitous slap at Tancredo's libertarian bona fides with the claim that Tancredo "made his name attacking immigration." As The New York Times might do, Bandow left out "illegal."
 
Few speak more eloquently than Tancredo about immigrants' wholesome contributions to our country's fabric. It will surprise some to know that one can't be libertarian while opposing illegal immigration, the position Tancredo has rather prominently championed.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cold water on global warming

"Global cooling has arrived. Global warming is dead." That is the subtitle of climatologist and physicist Terri Jackson's recent article in the Belfast Telegraph.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

News Vignettes Daily Here


For another regular update on news The Rocky Mountain Foundation has found important, funny or a little of both, click here.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Forgetting Reagan

The Rocky Mountain Foundation has commented previously (click here) about whether conservatives should "get beyond Reagan."
 
The late, great Jack Kemp was remembered as an effective Reagan ally by Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger. We are reminded by Henninger of Kemp's message, the crucial importance of providing "incentives to work, save and invest."
 
Lest one be gulled into thinking President Obama is Kemp-like with his rhetorical drumbeat about making "investments," Henninger makes the difference crystal clear: Reagan and Kemp supported incentives for investing private capital in private ventures.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Constitutional "Scholar" Needs More School

The man who rolled into The White House on a claim of being, among other things, a constitutional scholar is looking like anything but. More like a dictator.

Does anyone still believe executives in big business – the "country club crowd" – support free-market principles? Or are politically allied with those who do? Too many in Wall Street and corporate America love those handouts we've been taught to call lifesaving "bailouts" for an otherwise doomed economy. And myriad regulations that are far more burdensome for small businesses than the big boys.

Now they have a president right down their alley, ready to take control of companies like General Motors and slap around the nasty creditors of bankrupts like Chrysler to be sure his union pals are at the head of the line.
Click here and scroll down to "More School Needed ..."
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Post-Marijuana-Prohibtion USA - Safer!

Fact:  829,000 were arrested for marijuana offenses of which 89% were for simple possession in 2007.  This represents 44% of all drug arrests in the United States.

This number represents millions of police hours spent to search for, arrest and follow-up administrative tasks (writing report, proper handling of evidence, seeking a warrant, going to court).  Since not every search results in finding marijuana, any official number of hours spent in the arrest of the 829,000 will be lower than the amount actually spent.  In the 1990s my colleagues in Mid-Michigan (Lansing area) reported searching an average of 15 vehicles in order to make one marijuana arrest.

As an officer prepares to search a vehicle, nearly always they will ask another officer to assist with the vehicle search.  This action draws the second officer out of their patrol district, thus if a 911 call goes out, they are out of service or at least further away from the scene of the emergency.  This lowers public safety. 

Whether a custodial arrest is made or the person is given a citation and released, most officers immediately return to the station to secure the marijuana in an evidence locker and write the report.  This officer is out of service and away from their patrol district.

The amount of time to arrest for felony sale or manufacture of marijuana will normally vastly surpass that of simple possession.  Those 90,000 arrests easily represent in excess of one million police hours.  To that total must be added the vast number of marijuana grow ops where the police spend hours, even days destroying acres of pots plants and no suspects are ever found and charged.

Public safety is reduced as marijuana is grown in national parks and forestsHikers and hunters have been threatened, even killed.  Collateral damage is also done to ecosystems as a result of the use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc.  Pollution to nearby streams and posing a threat of a wildfire are added problems. 

National public safety is threatened as terrorists fund their operations with money earned from the sale of marijuana and its cousin hashish.  Federal police, DEA and FBI assets spend considerable amounts of time searching for and arresting those engaged in large scale marijuana operations, such as medical dispensaries in California, etc.  These are hours lost to searching for and arresting terrorists and other national security threats.

Any jail or prison space taken up for a violation of marijuana law is one less that could be occupied by someone convicted of a non-consensual crime like DUI, assault, rape, child porn, etc.

Prepared by:  Howard J. Wooldridge, retired Bath Township, Michigan Police Detective now representing LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Obama anti-gun camp and Mexican cartels' firearms

Mexico's ambassador to the United States has now picked up as a red herring an Obama administration drumbeat about US-origin firearms in the hands of his country's drug cartels. The drum major and majorette, Attorney General Eic Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have famously suggested that the cartels' armories can be weakened by more gun control in Mexico's neighbor to the north, the United States.

Former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Colo,) asks some embarrassing questions of the Ambassador, and notes without apology, "It is obvious that Obama’s teams at the Justice Department and the State Department are exploiting the violence in Mexico to justify more restrictions on gun ownership by Americans."
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The dangerous schemes of Enviros

"The selling of the green economy involves much economic make-believe. Environmentalists not only maximize the dangers of global warming -- from rising sea levels to advancing tropical diseases -- they also minimize the costs of dealing with it. Actually, no one involved in this debate really knows what the consequences or costs might be. All are inferred from models of uncertain reliability. Great schemes of economic and social engineering are proposed on shaky foundations of knowledge. Candor and common sense are in scarce supply."

That's the conclusion of
this Robert J. Samuelson column.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A rich dessert for the crocodile


Winston Churchill on appeasers - "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." Xcel Energy's appeasement in Colorado is legion, some
discussed here.
 
The General Electric Company may be an order of magnitude worse. This once respected company has lost more than two-thirds of its market value in a year, run by what one major business magazine identified as among the country's worst CEOs. It owns NBC and MSNBC, which are right up there with - maybe now ahead of - the disgraced Dan Rather for flagrant misuse of televised "news" and commentary to the advantage of one presidential candidate over another.
 
To see and hear more on this developing story, see Bill O'Reilly and guests here and here.
 
Like Excel, GE is oh-so-green. Among its products are the hazardous mercury-containing replacements for incandescent light bulbs Congress has decided to outlaw. One wonders how much of that poorly justified congressional action was a victory for GE's Washington DC lobbying.
 
GE is now reported to be in the carbon cap-and-trade business, possibly soon to be an international economic disaster.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Green" energy failing (again), Nuclear ascending (almost) worldwide

"The reality, of course, is that it doesn't matter how much sun or wind there is as long as the government provides huge subsidies at the expense of the taxpayer and of the economy's future prospects ... [leaving the United States] in the unenviable position of being the only major economic power led by a president dogmatically wedded to yesterday's make-believe universe of green energy that has already been debunked by reality in the rest of the world."
 
In its April 20 issue, National Review published an astonishing account of huge expansions of nuclear-electric generating capacity, both underway and planned, throughout the world. Meanwhile Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter brags of his state, ""We've become a national and worldwide leader with our New Energy Economy."
 
"New Energy Economy" is cheerleader's rhetoric for the failing green energy that is the subject of the outtake above. The United States is, as they say, "sucking wind."
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's always TABOR's fault


Writing in The Denver Post recently, the reliably left-wing Mike Littwin lamented, "In the land of TABOR, where the legislators basically work in handcuffs, an economic downturn always turns into crisis."
 
On the website Homepage of The Rocky Mountain Foundation, we have a little discussion of TABOR, a fine brake on growth of government spending that is the envy of most other states. And we discuss sabotage of TABOR by a later voter initiative pushed by the left, Amendment 23.
 
The handcuffs on legislators lamented by Littwin is spending growth for K-12 government schools mandated by Amendment 23.
 
Amendment 23 is to TABOR what salmonella is to peanuts.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »