Letters

From the November 1998 issue

Forbes on Drugs

During the dismal 1996 presidential campaign, Steve Forbes was the only "serious" candidate who looked even remotely appealing to me. In fact, I was highly frustrated when he dropped out of the race.

Perhaps, as John J. Pitney Jr. suggests ("Capitalist Tool Time," July), Forbes will again be the most tolerable candidate in 2000. But his vocal advocacy of the war on drugs (which I wasn't aware of in 1996) will be a bitter pill for me to swallow, even though, as Pitney notes, most likely every other major-party candidate will endorse drug war dogmas.

I'd like to be able to ask Forbes a couple of questions to see if his position on the drug war is one I can live with: Given that the resources of the criminal justice system are limited, if he wishes to maintain drug prohibition, which does he consider a higher priority: consensual drug offenses, or violent and predatory crime? Which is more important to Forbes, fighting drugs or defending the Constitution? Would he favor eliminating all "drug exceptions" to the Bill of Rights and requiring the police to respect citizens' rights, even if that means fewer drug arrests and convictions? Would he make a serious effort to halt civil-liberties horrors, such as no-knock drug raids on the homes of people who turn out to be innocent and asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement officials to seize property without trial? Or does he share the all-too-common view that this is a "war on drugs" and it's OK for civil liberties to be shoved aside during "wartime"?

Forbes's answers to these questions could determine whether I vote for him (if I get the chance this time) or once again "waste my vote" on the Libertarian Party candidate.

Bill Henley

Mr. Pitney states that while Steve Forbes is not the perfect candidate, who else is there? Libertarians will never get a good candidate if they settle for someone with Steve Forbes's qualities. The war against drugs has fueled domestic budget growth as well being one of the chief reasons that the Bill of Rights is shrinking and we are losing our privacy. Unless we choke off the drug war, we have nothing to look forward to other than growth in the prison-industrial complex and the loss of our precious freedom.

Henry Schwan
Seagoville, TX

Threats and Intimidation

Jacob Sullum appears to have fallen head over heels for the lies of the pro-life movement ("Mouths Sued Shut," July). The real facts are:

1) No one has ever gone on record as opposing pro-lifers' right to free speech, except when that speech becomes either a threat of force or screaming-in-your-face harassment. Do you really believe that it's anti-liberty to restrict those?

2) Perhaps blocking doorways to abortion clinics should be labeled coercion rather than extortion. It's still a use of force, and should be banned, and the ban should be enforced.

3) The pro-life movement, and the leaders of Operation Rescue in particular (including its jailed founder) have been on record many times with the message: "Our ideal is a country where abortion may be legal, but no one can obtain one." If that isn't proof that they use force in order to intimidate abortion providers and customers out of their legal rights to do business, what is?

John David Galt

Jacob Sullum replies: As I noted, the use of force or threats to disrupt abortion clinics is already illegal under state and federal law. RICO lawsuits are not needed to punish crimes such as trespassing and assault; they are needed to cast a wider net, punishing provocative speech that can be said to encourage such crimes. And although the plaintiffs are ostensibly seeking compensation, the real aim is not obtaining damages but encouraging self-censorship.

Comments

nfl jerseys|11.15.10 @ 8:17PM|#

bxtyt

log in or register to reply