I guess this is something liberals and libertarians are supposed to agree about, but I consistently find it bizarre that there are some people who seem to think it would be a good idea if you could just walk into your local convenience store and pick up some heroin or crack along with your Fritos and Diet Coke. At times, people taking this line seem to argue that drug prohibition couldn't possibly be having any beneficial effects because, after all, you can still find heroin. Naturally enough, you don't see anyone proposing that the "war on mugging" be ended simply because mugging-prohibition has failed to actually eliminate the proscribed activity. That said, like any reasonable person I think many aspects of current crime-control and drug-control policy in the United States don't make sense. So I have a hard time knowing what to make of things like this from Jerry Taylor:
While it should be obvious to any fair-minded observer that our increasingly brutal war on drugs is a losing proposition on all counts, few of us seem to be fair minded observers. So allow me to pose a question to those of you still clinging to this benighted enterprise: Exactly what would it take to convince you that the drug war was causing more harm than good? Is there any bit of data, any hypothetical fact, or anything at all that would cause you to give up the policy ghost? Because if there is not, then we are in the realm of religious belief — and that’s about all that I can find to support this cruel, costly, and counterproductive jihad.I mean, I'm not even clear on what question's being asked here. Do I think the status quo is preferable to total deregulation of currently prohibited drugs? I would say so. But considering how heavily regulated the use of alcohol and tobacco is, one hardly imagines that a heroin free-for-all (ads after school cartoons, for sale out of ice cream trucks) is a likely alternative policy. So, I don't know. What is the "war on drugs" exactly? Does it do more harm than good compared to what?
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Drug Wars in the blogosphere
Matthew Yglesias offers an interesting deconstruction of an all or nothing agrument against the war on drugs:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Nobody wants their kids to become drug addicts, but if they were to become one, would that parent also want them to be in prison?
You can't buy beer and liquor on the streets or in school because you can buy it in regulated stores. Also, if sometimes it is sold on the streets or in schools, it is not going to be 'rot-gut' or 'moonshine' but regulated 'brand name' products; so at least you know what you are getting.
Most people who try drugs do not become addicts. Just using some drugs is not necessarily 'Drug Abuse'. Meth is popular in small towns because nobody can get weed into town by the cops on the limited routes in and out of town, and the problems with electricity monitoring and overhead surveillance for outdoor growing...
absurd thought -
God of the Universe wants
more drug war violence
more kids addicted to drugs
terrorists need money too
.
I should have done a better job quoting. Part of his point was challenging the false choice of legalization or mass incarceration. No parent want their kid addicted to drugs or put in prison. While there's no perfect drug policy, there are better choices that we could make to limit their harms to society and the user and support recovery. Personally, I don't think that drug producers and sellers becoming more like Anheuser-Busch and R.J. Reynolds is a good thing. Imagine the marketing and lobbying power of a legalized drug trade.
Post a Comment