I selected this piece by Jack Cafferty, not because I consider him a sage on the subject, but because it's brief and cuts to the chase in terms of the war on drugs: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/31/cafferty.legal.drugs/index.html. I've been asking myself for a long time if what we're currently doing as a nation really makes sense when it comes to dope. It goes against my nature to want to yell calf rope, but does the effort really make a difference for the better? I don't know. I would like to hear from more people on the front lines; both law enforcement and drug users and recovering addicts to weigh their views on the matter.
Is there a family out there not touched by drug abuse? Most certainly, but maybe they're the exception now. Drugs have ruined lives in my own and my wife's side of the family and I'm not sure the incarceration of those afflicted really accomplished anything. They were and are generally good natured people but addicted and seemingly unable to kick the vice. Does locking them up really matter for the better? Cafferty also says in his piece that legalization would bring revenues to the coffers in terms of a tax on dope and less expenditures for law enforcement. Further, he says it would pretty much nullify drug cartels. I don't completely buy that, especially the part about less expenditures. From what I've seen, that money would simply be used by congress to fund other pet projects, so we wouldn't save anything. And, I'm thinking the cartels are clever enough people to make sure they had a seat at the money pile--they ain't going to walk away so we're still going to have bad guys to contend with in any scenario. All that said, I'd like to know what others think about this. What say ye?
8 comments:
Much to discuss, but I'll keep it short. I agree that punishment for the end user (addict or even recreational user) is a waste of time and money. The war on drugs not only adds to the "money pile" by increasing the product's street value but escalates violence and lawlessness.
Drugs are like just anything deemed pleasurable. The more difficult it is to procure, the more you want it.
Still, you can't just take the lid off the cookie jar, so to speak. You have to curtail the supply of the really nasty stuff, no matter what you decide to do with "milder" drugs. To do that, you must be harsher on the dealer/distributor/manufacturer. Start at school level. Selling drugs in school? Life - no parole. Manufacturing bathtub crank/cheese/etc. for distribution in schools? Death penalty. Any link in the kiddie supply chain should carry hard time - no parole.
Problem with the above is that a large percentage of the drugs found at schools/school functions originated in parents' medicine cabinets.
I don't see where selling dope shouldn't warrant a harsh prison sentence, especially anything more serious than pot. Like you, I question whether it's worth it to incarcerate users.
If we legalized or decriminalized drugs, more people would certainly access them and get addicted to them. How many? I don't know. You can get drugs in a lot of the Eurotrash nations legally and they seem to still be in enough working order to bitch about the U.S. rather well.
How many more users would exist if the law only prohibited selling? The structure of laws in a society is never perfect, but the US legal is, in my view, better than all the rest.
There's an easy resolution, Mr. Taras, to your dope envy of the European lifestyle.
Tough talk from a beret wearing frog wannabee.
Fascinating that you choose the beret as a talisman of weakness since it became the official headgear for all divisions of the US Army in 2001.
http://www.army.mil/features/beret/beret.htm
Note, Cafferty is not just suggesting legalizing dope, but all drugs. There is a HUGE difference between pot and crack or heroin. While legalizing pot may have little negative impact on society (the correlation to alcohol seems appropriate for it), crack and heroin are extremely dangerous and exponentially more addicting. I've not heard an intelligent argument for legalizing such destructive drugs.
From a financial standpoint, legalizing only pot will not draw down that $44B enforcement cost much, if at all. We need to be just as vigilant about the hard stuff. As for taxing, those estimates are probably based on street value, which is probably substantially higher than what an open market price would be.
I would like to officially go on record: Taras, you are my favorite blogger (with due respect offered to the other posters on this blog). You write about things that guys like to read. You inspire friendly debate, brotherly dissing, and thoughtful insight. Keep it up!!!
Hodie, thanks and you are my favorite beret wearing frog wannabe and I like the Wisdom of Mayberry except for the homoerotic nature of your devotion to Andy Griffith. Lurch, I pretty much see it the same--I do think we should reconsider the pot thing. Is pot an entry drug? Definitely. But, I don't see where we're really getting anywhere prosecuting potheads. I'd rather throw the book at heroin pushers.
Post a Comment