Does this strike anyone else as naive? In writing about the FDA's new powers to regulate tobacco, more specifically the FDA's power to regulate nicotine yields, Saletan says:
BTW - I don't consider myself a "drug warrior". I generally don't think anyone should be incarcerated for personal use or possession. Drug courts are about as warrior-like as I get. But, I find myself asking, when did the options for drug policy become regulation or mass incarceration?
I also never cease to be astonished that none of these writers acknowledge the context inadequate access to adequate treatment.
Technorati Tags: drugs, policy, tobacco, regulation, FDA
This is what drug warriors don't understand: There's always market competition, whether you like it or not. Prohibition just means that the competition is between legal and illegal products. To beat illegal products in an already-addicted market, you need sufficiently attractive legal alternatives. Then, by regulating and manipulating the legal products, you can ratchet down the harm and addiction. That's how you bring the market under control.Come on. If we took this approach to other drugs there wouldn't be a massive black market? I suspect we'd end up with two markets, a legal one for adult recreational users and an illegal one for kids and addicts--kids because they couldn't buy it legally and addicts because they wouldn't be sated by the reduced yield stuff. We'd be back where we are.
BTW - I don't consider myself a "drug warrior". I generally don't think anyone should be incarcerated for personal use or possession. Drug courts are about as warrior-like as I get. But, I find myself asking, when did the options for drug policy become regulation or mass incarceration?
I also never cease to be astonished that none of these writers acknowledge the context inadequate access to adequate treatment.
Technorati Tags: drugs, policy, tobacco, regulation, FDA
No comments:
Post a Comment