Recently there have been a number of articles advocating the decriminalization of marijuana and all illegal drugs.  The justification has been that the drug war has been unsuccessful controlling drugs in this country and breeds contempt for the legal system. The belief is that taxes can be used to modify behavior while being a revenue source. Drug use can be a slippery slope that can progress from recreational use to occasional use, then frequent use leading to addiction and a degenerate life style, and even death. It is not surprising that no one who has had a relative or close friend travel this destructive path is advocating decriminalization or legalization of any drugs. It is also a hidden truth that taxes are notorious for non-achievement of desired behavior changes and unintended consequences. If marijuana is decriminalized then the same logic can and should be used to roll back the profusion of other personal behaviors and activities regulated by the state today.

Wasn’t the United States of America founded on the principles of freedom and liberty over 225 years ago?  Individual freedom and liberty allowed any personal action as long as it did not adversely impact any other person. Actions are not dictated by any moral, racial, or religious creeds, but are legislated by our Congress for our “common good.”  Over time our legal system has grown to regulate and restrict personal actions, personal consumption of legal and illegal products, and behaviors that affect our personal health.  The question is whether we have gone too far trying to implement social engineering with restrictions and taxes on morals, actions, or sins?

What is the role of the government vis-a-vis individual liberty and behavior? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  The state should protect the liberty of individuals to act as they wish as long as they do not infringe upon the liberties of others. Freedom is the right to act according to ones will without being held up by the power of others. From a philosophical point of view, it can be defined as the capacity to determine your own choices. Libertarianism seeks to maximize individual libertyand minimize or even abolish the state. American laws struggle to find the right balance between individual freedom and the “common good.”

There are many types of activities and behaviors regulated by the state today.  There are a number examples of regulations designed to protect us from ourselves such as seat belts, motorcycle helmets, and bicycle helmets. There are also regulations to control our personal behavior for our own good such as personal hygiene, who with and where we can perform sexual acts, and what foods and where we can eat. Finally there are numerous regulations concerning “sinful” acts such as consuming alcoholic beverages, smoking of tobacco products, and personal use of recreational drugs. All of these activities and behaviors are personal choices that only impact ourselves, since other laws regulate potential interactions with others.  

There are degrees of regulation and restriction, both positive and negative to affect our personal behavior. The fear of negative consequences is the most prevalent form of regulation such as making the behavior illegal and penalizing breaking the regulation with monetary penalties or restricting future behavior as the biggest threat. A common negative restriction is requiring a certain age, usually 18, as a prerequisite such as driving, drinking, or contractual obligations.  Another technique employed is to uses taxes to interject affordability into the behavior decision such as increasing taxes to discourage excessive drinking or smoking. Positive behavior modification is employed with constant reinforcement of the positive consequences associated with following the regulations such as statistical proof that helmets prevent head injuries and seat belts prevent automobile deaths.  It has been statistically proven that fear of negative consequences is the strongest of these behavioral incentives.

A better solution may be to decriminalize behavior by removing criminal penalties but retain ability to regulate. A society may come to the view that an act is not harmful, should no longer be criminalized, or is otherwise not a matter to be addressed by the criminal justice system.  Decriminalization removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations. Decriminalization reflects changing social and moral views, and focuses on treatment. The term “victimless crime” refers to infractions of criminal law without any identifiable evidence of an individual that has suffered damage in the infraction. Examples of subject matter which have been the subject of changing views on criminality over time in various societies and countries include: prostitution, homosexuality, and drug use. While decriminalized acts are no longer crimes, they may still be the subject of regulation; for example, the licensing and regular medical testing of sex workers, or a monetary penalty in place of a criminal charge for the possession of a decriminalized drug.  

Meanwhile behavior modification with taxes has been ineffective influencing behavior. Taxes are sold as means to discourage behavior, but cost is rarely the critical decision factor. Alcohol and tobacco taxes are not designed to impact consumption, but rather to raise revenue, which is felt most by the lower and middle classes. In most cases the amount of revenue projected is rarely achieved and, all too frequently, the revenues are diverted to other purposes than originally promised.  Alaska, Zurich, and Amsterdam all decriminalized drugs for small users, but found consumption grows and addicts multiply.

The best thing this country could do would be to repeal all the personal behavior crimes and let individuals be responsible for their actions and the impact of their actions:  

·    Define the age of 18 as the entry into adulthood with all the associated responsibilities that come with that milestone such as adult penalties for misbehaving; 

·    Repeal all laws on personal behavior for adults (smoking, helmets, seat belts, etc.); 

·    Legalize all drugs for anyone over 18 years of age;

·    Repeal all sin taxes (tobacco, alcohol, drugs, etc.) as inefficient at influencing behavior, ineffective incenting desirable behavior, and discriminatory;

·    Implement positive behavior modification techniques to reward desired behavior, such as health insurance discounts to reward healthy lifestyle;

·    Only punish bad behavior if it impacts others. 

However there is no reason that all taxpayers must subsidize these personal choices and their consequences. In order to make this change effective, negative behavior consequences must also be implemented by removing eligibility to all government safety nets such as food stamps, welfare, and health care. New Hampshire says it best, “Live Free, Or Die!”

 

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY

www.ReturnToCommonSensesite.com

On the surface Obama appears to be helter skelter with his multiple disconnected objectives, but in reality all these initiatives are integral to his socialist transformation that requires dismantling the Constitution and fundamental political, cultural, and economic changes.  Ever since Obama took office, critics of his leadership style have accused him of tackling too many initiatives at once. That blurs the focus of the White House and Congress and prevents the president from communicating a clear theme about his agenda to ordinary Americans. Now, as Obama’s approval rating in polls has dwindled to 47%, that criticism has grown louder. President Obama's anti-American philosophy lies in his willingness to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution...." and to believe he is exempt from the Oath of Office he took to "protect and defend the Constitution."  Within such a paradigm, anything is permissible, including the complete destruction of American economic strength as part of an abstract notion of redistributive justice. As an anti-capitalist Obama equates money with power and has no problem printing more “monopoly money” and buying votes  in Congress or now in Copenhagan in order to advance his socialist agenda. As a shrewd socialist Obama employs the 1966 Cloward–Piven strategy to overwhelm Congress with their leftist transformation agenda creating serial “crises” that are too big to understand, but require immediate radical “reforms” without the need to read the 1,000+ page legislation. It is a very real problem since the attention is scattered and the message is scattered as well. Obama is a master at obfuscation distracting attention from his unpopular initiatives by diverting attention to minor media issues such as Obama’s birth certificate, Harvard race profiling, and White house gate crashers. Meanwhile he is not averse to throwing staffers and acolytes “under the bus” to extend controversy while stealthily advancing his liberal agenda behind the scenes. Obama has also drawn particular fire for the substance of his foreign policy agenda, which emphasizes “photo op” dialogue with foreign allies and adversaries alike with no pre-conditions and apparently no progress required. The White House believes that multiple priorities and messages are tailor made for the new media infrastructure on the Internet, social networks and niche publications. The belief is that there has been a fundamental shift in how people consume news and information, and in-depth knowledge of issues is no longer necessary. It is in Democrat’s best interest that no one has all the information, so spoon feeding selected data and “sound bites” to selected audiences is part of the overall communications strategy. President Obama’s biggest political exposure is that the impact of his policies will not live up to expectations and his approval will continue to plunge with disappointing results in economic growth, unemployment, health care, the Afghanistan war,  and international relations.

 

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY

www.returntocommonsensesite.com

Obama is failing on his domestic agenda: Obama is failing on his foreign policy agenda; and now even his Afghanistan speech at West Point disappointed and failed to inspire or convince anyone! His speech was flat and received a cool welcome from the cadets, even after they were asked to respond “enthusiastically,” as he confusingly tried to satisfy the entire political spectrum. Obama did not take ownership of the war calling it the war in Afghanistan, not Obama’s War. He had a chance to rally the country and the world around defeating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but he was not up to the leadership challenge – not even close. The first 15 minutes of his speech was a straightforward explanation of his Afghanistan decision, but then for the next 20 minutes he unsuccessfully tried to sell this decision. Barack Obama only sees the trees and completely misses the forest: a lot of criticism of the Iraq policies; a lot of talk about Afghanistan and Pakistan plans; but nothing was said about Iran and its emerging nuclear weapons program or Islamic extremism exported abroad! LTG McChrystal asked for at least 40,000 troops, and 60,000 to ensure success, but President Obama dithered for three months and finally decided to authorize an additional 30,000. Obama’s focus on ramp-up followed by early exit marks his strategy as the equivalent of a “drive-by shooting,” hoping for the perception of success rather than victory, but more importantly quick political escape. The close juxtaposition of his statement to send more troops with that of a pledge to begin withdrawing them after 18 months is confusing to the American public, America's NATO allies, and most unfortunately, to Afghans and Pakistanis, who are all too familiar with the U.S.'s history of turning its back on this volatile region. He seems fixated on corruption and fraud in the Afghanistan elections but refuses to see rampant corruption in Minnesota elections or the country-wide plague of ACORN fraud. From a policy standpoint Obama’s acceptance of the Taliban, Islamic extremists and terrorist enablers, as legitimate Afghanistan players is like embracing “reformed Nazis” after WWII. America’s perceived weakness will undermine the Afghan government, encourage many Afghans to hedge their bets by cultivating better ties with the Taliban, and undermine Pakistan's resolve to confront the Afghan Taliban leadership that finds sanctuary within its borders. Obama made his debut as a war president in his West Point speech, but unfortunately he didn't inspire confidence…more of a sinking feeling. The President came across as an uncertain political leader eager to split the differences within his divided Administration to implement an exit strategy, despite the likely disastrous consequences of such a plan. Like in the Wizard of Oz when you see the real Obama behind the Wizard’s curtain, you are very disappointed how weak he really is!

Iraq – The Right War for the Right Reasons

The Global War on Terror (GWOT) did not begin September 11, 2001, but was the defining act in a continued war on the United States that began decades before. These Islamo-fascists were actively supported and financed by a number of autocratic regimes throughout the Middle East. These terrorists are not limited by any conventions or rules of law, and routinely targeted innocent civilians as an accepted tactic. Terrorist acquisition and potential use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), including chemical, biological, or nuclear, is a real threat, since high volume destruction is a stated goal of these terrorist groups.

Iraq invaded its neighbor country of Kuwait in 1990. In 1991 a United Nations coalition, lead by the US, liberated Kuwait and drove the military back into Iraq. The international community maintained a policy of containment towards Iraq. This policy included numerous and crushing military and economic sanctions, US and UK patrols of Iraqi no-fly zones declared to protect Kurds in the north and Shi’ites in the south, and ongoing inspections to prevent Iraqi development of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Meanwhile the UN passed a series of Resolutions demanding enforcement of the arms control disarmament. The US and the UK enforced the truce and monitored the arms control inspections, until the inspectors were thrown out in 1998. In October President Clinton signed the “Iraq Liberation Act” to establish a program to support a democracy in Iraq. Iraq regime change was openly discussed as a national objective.

President Bush was elected November 2000. On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by al-Qaeda terrorists. On September 20^th President Bush announced the new Global War on Terror (GWOT), including the doctrine of pre-emptive military action, termed the Bush Doctrine. In October the US and UK launched Operation Enduring Freedom to invade Afghanistan, capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban which had provided support and safe harbour to al-Qaeda. Later NATO troops joined the conflict in Afghanistan.

In September 2002 President Bush began formally making his case to the international community for an invasion of Iraq. After considerable debate the UN Security Council adopted a compromise resolution, 1441, which authorized the resumption of weapons inspections and promised “serious consequences” for noncompliance. In October 2002 the US Congress passed Public Law 107-243 “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolutions of 2002.” In March 2003 the US and the “Coalition of the Willing” of 50 countries invaded Iraq.

The reasons are clear and have been proven by the results of the invasion. The primary rationale was to enforce the multiple UN Security Council Resolutions that were passed since the earlier Gulf War. The second reason was to ensure the WMDs were destroyed as required by the UN Resolutions. The third rationale was to remove the regime that supports terrorists and terrorism. The final rationale was to topple Saddam Hussein and free the Iraqi people.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, passed by majorities of both parties in both Houses, began with a series of 23 “Whereas” clauses justifying the war. Twelve of these reasons for going to war refer to UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein. Ten of these reasons for going to war refer to the elimination of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons or weapons development programs. Ten of the reasons for going to war refer to support for international terrorism or harboring terrorist organizations. Five of the reasons for going to war refer to the need for freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal regime

Many questions remain about the WMDs. Iraq was able to use chemical weapons in its war against Iran and to kill large numbers of its own Kurdish population in the 1980s. By the time UNSCOM left Iraq in December 1998, it had eliminated a large portion of Iraq's chemical weapon potential. UNSCOM had overseen the destruction or incapacitation of more than 88,000 filled or unfilled chemical munitions, over 600 tons of weaponized or bulk chemical agents, some 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals, some 980 pieces of key production equipment, and some 300 pieces of analytical equipment. After UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq in December 1998, U.S.-led forces bombed many sites believed to be chemical weapon plants. After the bombing, reports emerged that Iraq had rebuilt many of those sites, and that the sites appeared to be operating. No large stockpiles of WMD munitions were found. Small number of old chemical shells were recovered. Several suspected chemical weapons factories were uncovered after the invasion. Evidence of chemical weapons development was found and capable of being used to reconstitute the weapons development in a relatively short time.

Iraq managed to produce anthrax, aflatoxin, botulinum toxin, gas gangrene, ricin, and wheat smut, and was also known to be working on cholera, mycotoxins, shigellosis, and viruses (including camelpox, infectious hemorrhaghic conjunctivitis and rotavirus) as well as genetic engineering. There are suspicions that Iraq was also working on smallpox. Many aspects of Iraq's biological weapon program remain unknown. These unknowns include the total amount of germ agent Iraq produced and the status of Iraq's unaccounted for stocks of biological growth media, agents, production equipment and handbooks, as well as munitions and warheads. Iraq admitted that it weaponized biological agents between December 1990 and January 1991. The types of munitions under development for use with biological weapons included Al Hussein missile warheads, R-400 aerial bombs, aircraft drop tanks, pilotless aircraft, helicopter-borne spraying systems, 122 mm rockets, LD-250 aerial bombs, and fragmentation weapons. Furthermore, inspectors say that Iraq became self-sufficient; meaning it no longer needed imports to fuel its BW program. The uncertainties that surround this program made it all the more threatening in the absence of inspections and monitoring.

Iraq has pursued the development of nuclear weapons since the 1980s. UN inspectors learned that Iraq's first bomb design, which weighed a ton and was a full meter in diameter, was replaced by a smaller, more efficient model, that made it small enough to fit on Iraq's Scud-type missiles. Iraq mastered the key technique of creating an implosive shock wave, which squeezes a bomb's nuclear material enough to trigger a chain reaction. The inspectors determined that Iraq had managed to develop a successful bomb design and lacked only the fissile material to fuel it. Tons of enriched uranium were recovered after the invasion.

There is no question that Iraq had programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. There is also no question that much of their stockpiles were destroyed during the ‘90s as part of the UNSCOM inspection program. It is believed that one quarter of Iraq’s WMDs were destroyed under UN pressure during the early 1990’s. It is believed that Iraq sold approximately another quarter of the weapons stockpile to Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990’s. It is also believed that the Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last months before the war. With no record of there destruction there will always be a question of their disposition and whether they can be reconstituted as a weapon for use in the future. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam’s nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq when the coalition forces arrived in 2003, but were stolen from under the Americans’ noses and sent to Syria. Syria is one of eight countries in the world that never signed a treaty banning WMDs. Depending on what was shipped out of the country; the ability to reconstitute a WMD program is undetermined. The recent air raid by Israel in Deir al Zour, Syria was designed to destroy the nuclear work underway there, and discourage any further work developing nuclear material there. At this point the only assurance is that Iraq no longer has this capability. There is also a hope that any country that may have received this material will not be foolish enough to try to weaponize this material for their own or any terrorist organization use.

Iraq is one of seven countries that had been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UN Security Council Resolution 687 prohibited Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. There is ample evidence now available to substantiate the claim that the Iraq government actively aided and abetted radical terrorist groups. In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals. Iraqi intelligence met with Osama Bin Laden in 1995 when Bin Laden requested that Iraqi radio broadcast his speeches. Bin Laden also “requested joint operations against the forces of infidels in the land of Hijaz,” which is Saudi Arabia.  In November 1995 al-Qaeda bombed the Saudi National Guards headquarters in Riyadh, killing five Americans. In 1999 Fedayeen collaborated with Uday Hussein on plans to sabotage, bomb, and assassinate Kurdish areas in Iraq, Iran, and London. Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians. Iraq sheltered several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.  Iraq also sheltered the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq. In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."  Iraq maintained a terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

The final rationale was to topple Saddam Hussein and free the Iraqi people. President Clinton signed the “Iraq Liberation Act” to establish a program to support a democracy in Iraq. Iraq regime change was openly discussed as a national objective.  Saddam Hussein rejected every attempt to address the UN Security Council Resolutions peacefully. Meanwhile Saddam Hussein led a repressive regime that murdered thousands of its own citizens. A key principle of the Bush Doctrine was to replace dictatorships with democratic governments as both morally justified, since it leads to greater freedom for the citizens of such countries, and strategically wise, since democratic countries are more peaceful, and breed less terrorism, than dictatorial ones.  Removing Saddam Hussein and the Baathist regime freed 25 million Iraqis to live a life free of fear. Although the al-Qaeda has replaced the Baathists as the source of fear, the recent surge has finally turned the corner on returning the country to its freely formed government.

In summary invading Iraq was the right thing to do in 2003, and is still the right thing to do, now that we know the full extent of Iraq’s progress destroying their weapons of mass destruction programs, their support of international terrorism, and their repression of the Iraq people.

 

 

The Global War on Terror in general is covered at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/terrorism.html and the Middle East Theater in particular is covered at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/middleeast.html .

 

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY

I wish I could vote FOR a Presidential candidate, but more likely I will vote AGAINST the other candidate….. holding my nose when I depress the lever to vote for whoever is left.  Let’s look at my voting record over the last 10 elections and who I voted for or against:

 

1968: voted AGAINST Hubert Humphrey

1972: voted AGAINST George McGovern

1976: voted AGAINST Jimmy Carter

1980: voted FOR Ronald Reagan

1984: voted FOR Ronald Reagan

1988: voted AGAINST Michael Dukakis

1992: voted FOR Ross Perot

1996: voted AGAINST Bill Clinton

2000: voted AGAINST Al Gore

2004: voted AGAINST John Kerry

 

I consider myself an Independent who is morally conservative. My voting record reflects my lack of enthusiasm for either party. I believe I am not alone in my thinking and that a significant number of people either vote their conscience like me or don’t vote at all.  Perhaps the fact that less than half the people vote in any given election is a reflection of this dissatisfaction.

 

The days of an inspirational leader receiving my vote is a distant memory… “fuhgettaboutit.”