The Economist weighs in on drug prohibition. (Again.) Not surprising, given their Libertarian leanings.
I like that they refer to legalization as the "least bad" option. This frames the discussion in a more honest way, though their presentation of the risks/benefits are simplistic and suffer from excessive certitude. (Note that they're advocating the legalization of ALL drugs.)
They also make the assumptions that one would expect from a publication devoted to free markets:
Something is clearly happening. Chatter on the topic is growing. Let's hope for reform, but let's hope it's done in a thoughtful and realistic way. The status quo is unacceptable, but the distance between the status quo and legalization is vast.
I like that they refer to legalization as the "least bad" option. This frames the discussion in a more honest way, though their presentation of the risks/benefits are simplistic and suffer from excessive certitude. (Note that they're advocating the legalization of ALL drugs.)
They also make the assumptions that one would expect from a publication devoted to free markets:
Prohibition has failed to prevent the proliferation of designer drugs, dreamed up in laboratories. Legalisation might encourage legitimate drug companies to try to improve the stuff that people take.I do not share their faith that free markets would be a good thing for the drug trade.
Something is clearly happening. Chatter on the topic is growing. Let's hope for reform, but let's hope it's done in a thoughtful and realistic way. The status quo is unacceptable, but the distance between the status quo and legalization is vast.
1 comment:
Free market drug trade? Not a good idea.It doesn't even work with televisions.Imagine Walmart on crack, (literally). Although, in a sick way fair trade, organic, single origin, estate grown Chinese heroin whose proceeds benefit oppressed children in Gaza, sounds appealing.
Post a Comment