Drug War

This Former Congressman Is Against the War on Drugs

Trey Radel explains why he's not "just another tea party asswipe who got busted for drugs and voted to drug test food stamp recipients."


Editor's Note: In January 2013, Trey Radel came to Washington as a Republican congressman representing Florida's 19th district, an area that includes Fort Meyers and Naples. Radel had been a TV anchor prior to his win and he ran on a libertarian-leaning Tea Party platform of shrinking the size and spending of the government. Just a year later, Radel resigned from Congress after getting busted buying drugs and pleading guilty to misdemeanor cocaine possession. Ironically, Radel was and is a critic of the drug war. In his riveting new memoir about his short time in office, Radel documents not just his self-destruction but a political system that always seems to put philosophical ideals and good policy last. Democrazy: A True Story of Weird Politics, Money, Madness, and Finger Food, is a no-holds-barred account of what it's like to come to Washington and really screw up. More than that, though, it reveals a system that needs radical reform. In this excerpt, Radel recounts the immediate aftermath of his drug bust, which was inevitably (and legitimately) tied to a vote to drug-test food-stamp recipients he had cast as part of a farm bill.

U.S. Congress, Public Domain

During this awful time, it felt like every political pundit on the planet; every TV newscast, newspaper, and online publication; and every comedian in the world was coming after me. Although, after all those years of dreaming I'd be on SNL, I made it. Seth Meyers ripped me often on "Weekend Update." Every pundit and comedian seemed to take particular glee in my vote on the provision in the farm bill regarding food stamps and drug testing. Remember when I said that this vote would come back to bite me in the ass?

It all started when the Huffington Post ran an article with the headline: "Trey Radel, Busted on Cocaine Charge, Voted for Drug Testing Food Stamp Recipients." The irony is the HuffPo reporter, in at least one of the articles, actually expounded on my view on the failed War on Drugs and my past votes focused on criminal justice reform. But, c'mon, who reads articles? At the lowest moment of my life, I was being savaged on national television for getting busted for drugs after voting to drug test food stamp recipients.

After the press broke the massive farm bill down to a headline, the public boiled my vote down to one meme—a picture of me with white powder Photoshopped all over my face saying: "Republican votes to drug test food stamp recipients, gets busted for cocaine."

The truth was that it had not been a single vote to "drug test these dirty dogs getting handouts!" It was part of the thousand-plus-page farm bill loaded with other provisions, and it gave states more power over how they wanted to administer their food stamps. I believe in "to each state its own," especially when it comes to addressing local issues and concerns. I thought that Washington's constant "one size fits all" mandates were doomed to fail.

So while I am a Republican who is so libertarian that I could have been labeled a liberal because of my determination to end the War on Drugs and work with Democrats, it didn't matter. I was just another tea party asswipe who got busted for drugs and voted to drug test food stamp recipients.

This was especially tough for me to take because I was and am such a staunch opponent of the War on Drugs.

Our drug policies in the United States should be focusing on rehabilitation, not incarceration. There's a fiscally conservative argument for this because we throw away billions of dollars a year locking people up and turning our backs on them. Many times nonviolent drug offenders return to society lacking skills to get a job, or they're turned away from jobs because of their record. Worse, they come out as hardened criminals, which places an even greater economic burden on society.

Ironically, shortly before my bust, I worked with Democrats to cosponsor the Justice Safety Valve Act. In fact, I was one of only a few Republicans to do so. The goal: Get rid of mandatory minimums and allow judges to impose penalties below the statutory sentences. We often see cases of nonviolent drug offenders who get locked up for years only to come out with little to offer society and a society with little to offer them. It's a catch-22 with terrible results for both the individual and society. Furthermore, young Hispanics and African American men are disproportionately locked up, making life that much harder for those who have had the deck stacked against them from birth.

And there's another group of men and women who are really, really screwed over by the War on Drugs because they are caught in the middle of violence and hatred due to our inept laws. Liberals won't talk about this group because it's not politically expedient, and conservatives won't because it reveals their hypocrisy and exposes the very problems they've created through their ignorant "just say no" bumper-sticker policies.

The group? The men and women of law enforcement. I'm talking about cops.

The War on Drugs is one of the main sources of anger and resentment between communities and law enforcement in the United States today. Sure, there are heavy-handed rogue cops who use drug laws to unnecessarily surveil or outright harass individuals. But there are loads of good men and women in law enforcement who privately rail against the system that puts them and others into dangerous situations. "Hey, coppers, did you think breaking up that domestic disturbance sucked when the drunk guy pulled a gun on you just after knocking out his wife? Yeah, well, now we're sending you, a couple of white cops, into a minority neighborhood where you are utterly despised. If you 'smell something funny,' the law will compel you to drag some young adults out of their car in front of their families and friends, frisk them, embarrass them, and undoubtedly make them angry." Good luck.

Ask yourself: Would you rather have the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, and local law enforcement arresting people who are using recreational drugs in their home or tracking down fanatics about to walk out of their home strapped with AK-47s and suicide vests?

Do you think that example is too extreme? Go ask law enforcement how much time they waste dealing with low-level drug offenders. And after officers throw away taxpayer dollars and time to keep you safe from someone who made what is essentially a private transaction for their own private use, Juan or Devon goes to jail, crowding our prisons with these not-so-grave threats to society. And, mind you, you're paying the bill—billions a year—to keep them locked up.

Oddly, when it comes to alcohol, society somehow looks at people who get busted for DUIs with a chuckle and shrug. "Haha! Did Uncle Billy get popped for driving after his twelfth Busch heavy?!" Yes, he did! And the difference between Uncle Billy, and millions of others like him who drink and drive, is the person behind the wheel after a few drinks might kill your entire family with their car while you're sharing the road with them.

As for drug testing food stamp recipients, the policy has been proven to be a failure economically and in terms of enforcement; the cost of the testing hasn't been outweighed by arrests because the states rarely catch anyone. There are very few of those evil people doing drugs and taking food stamps. States that enforce this kind of policy end up targeting the elderly, the disabled, or mothers and fathers working eight days a week to put food on their families' table. All an evil constituency! A test drags parents away from their jobs, or their multiple jobs, and their kids, who they see only late at night or early in the morning if they're lucky.

The only context I can offer for voting for the provision is this: Every few months or years, thousand-plus-page bills are passed that are loaded with tons of garbage that keep the current status quo within our tax code and continue subsidies. Big Oil gets their tax break; green energy gets their money. But accusing a liberal of supporting oil or a conservative of supporting government handouts is a gross overgeneralization. It's just not true. But, damn, it sure sounds good politically.

But whether we like it or not, this is how the legislative process is built. The men and women in Congress face "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations every day. As an eternal optimist, I call it compromise. And, dammit, compromise is not a dirty word.

The farm bill presented such a vote. If I voted for it, I'd be the jerk who approved the drug testing provision. If I voted against it, I'd be the jerk who stole food stamps from hungry children and destroyed the lives of family farmers. Democrats who voted yes with me did so because the good in the bill outweighed the bad: food stamps would continue, the ag industry would be assured stability, and your milk wouldn't shoot up to ten freaking bucks a gallon. Looks like we are all terrible people.

This is excerpted from Democrazy: A True Story of Weird Politics, Money, Madness, and Finger Food, on sale now.

NEXT: The Limits of Expertise

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s kind of hard listening to a congressman bemoan thousand page plus bills filled with pork, when it is congressmen that put those bills together in the fist place. Are you telling me that those bills can’t be broken down into smaller bills? That if it is so important for green energy to get a subsidy/handout or for oil companies to get a tax break that those could be submitted in a separate bill? I know that the article was an excerpt from his book so maybe he tackles that issue in the book but the excerpt does not convey that tone.

    1. Sure, you could try. And then when it failed, that would be proof that you don’t understand how ag policy works. True statesman know how to lard up a bill until it’s so fat that a majority of Congresspersons will vote for it. So sayeth Suderman, anyway.

    2. He’s not the one who wrote the 1,000 page bill and he’s bemoaning the fact that this is how the sausage gets made ( Every few months or years, thousand-plus-page bills are passed that are loaded with tons of garbage that keep the current status quo within our tax code and continue subsidies. Big Oil gets their tax break; green energy gets their money.) He’s one congresscritter out of 435, unless and until you elect a significant proportion of congresscritters dedicated to stopping this crap this is the way it stays. So, no, those bills can’t be broken down into smaller bills because there’s maybe only half-a-dozen or so that sincerely and honestly want this kind of transparency and accountability, the rest are quite happy to hide behind a wall of garbage as long as they can get their snout in the trough and at the same time deny they’ve got their snout in the trough.

      Getting elected and governing are two entirely different skill sets and unfortunately it doesn’t matter how much of the latter you have if you don’t have the former – and even worse, it doesn’t matter how much of the latter you’ve got if you do have the former. That’s why the majority of congresscritters aren’t statesmen, they’re bullshit artists whose main talent is the schmoozing and glad-handing and shit-talking necessary to get elected. They’re a bunch of fucking used-car salesmen.

      1. I agree. I just wish he would have taken a more principled stance and voted no on the bill because it was a 1000+ page bill, regardless of how much “good” was included.

  2. Break out the tiny violin…

  3. Wait, so the readers of a libertarian publication are supposed to sympathize with this guy because he did not, per se, vote to drug-test stamp recipients, but in reality was simply voting for a FARM BILL? So that “the lives of family farmers” wouldn’t be “destroyed,” “states would be given more power” to impose a moral-panic-based, expensive bureaucratic management of transfer payments that even he acknowledges is useless and counterproductive, “food stamps would continue, the ag industry would be assured stability,” and government price controls on milk would endure?
    Is there something I’m missing here? (Seriously; I well might be.)

    1. No you got it. He was just another Tea-Party asswipe pretending to be libertarian.

      1. aka Glibertarians.

    2. You nailed it. Billy clubs and handcuffs work Revelation on Inner Party members in Room 101. The good news is that mystical conservative zombies can actually raciocinate given proper duress. I’ll bet some of these girl-bullying birth-forcers might even come around to individual rights and the difference between post and propter. They need only get pregnant, and Shazam! Realization will dawn.

      Why doesn’t Reason do an “If Gary had Won” series from the quantum multiverse instead of regurgitating looter screed?

    3. Up until the last para. I was on his side. Then?huh??

  4. This is why you don’t vote for thousand-plus page bills.

    1. Yea, I was gonna say if you’re faced with this kind of shit, you do what Dr. Ron Paul did: vote no and stick with it. Better to be principled and reviled for it by dumbasses, than compromise and continue the spiral of decay we have now.

  5. Who cares? He’s yesterday’s garbage. No use to anyone now.

  6. my buddy’s mother gets 66 each hour on the internet, she has been out of a job for twelve months.. the previous month her payment was 16114 just working on the internet four hours per day. go here to this
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.moneytime10.com

  7. This dude was snorting coke while passing bills loaded with statist horseshit, you have to be an idiot to think he is/was the only one – Hey Asswipes how about leaving the whores and drugs alone and get your asses to work repealing onerous laws that restrain the peasants from exercising their natural rights.

  8. Here’s the world’s smallest violin playing just for Trey Radel. A public official walked after he was busted for snorting coke- but sadly, they made fun of him in the Huffington Post! I wonder if he mentions in his book who he ratted out so that he could skate.

  9. So the looter press now says the Ku-Klux Koathanger Tea Party is “libertarian-leaning”? They must really hate our guts.

  10. A person with a conscience would vote against any 1000-page law, regardless of what is in those pages.

  11. So are we supposed to feel sympathetic towards lawmakers who feel compelled to vote for pork laden, 1000 page bills written by special interests because it might damage their electability? Being a true opponent of the drug war would have required him to introduce a simple 1 page bill. Instead he co-sponsors some garbage called the Justice Safety Valve Act and acts as though he’s some sort of champion of liberty.

  12. This Former Congressman Is Against the War on Drugs


  13. Dude, fuck people. You’re obviously a stand-up guy if you partied like that. You should realize as well that your moral superiority was upgraded when you were vitimized by these pieces of human prohibitionists shit. You earned your drug war purlple heart. Again fuck these peopke they are scum.

  14. I agree with the poster who suggested breaking these mammoth, pork-laden, ridiculous, non-free market, non-farm farm bills up into smaller bills. As a farmer I can remember some “farm bills” spending over a third of all the ag revenue generated in our country. Price controls, tariffs, subsidies, etc don’t give the industry stability. Statists “helping” farmers has been the kiss of death for more producers than the free market.
    Gut the welfare for farmers and split food stamps and other crap out….debate that in its own separate bill.

  15. Because Re-Hab has such a stellar track-record.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.