Can you believe 'The Economist' magazine is arguing for drug legalization!

[MJR81]

If there are any familiar with ‘The Economist’ out there (or even if you aren’t familiar), take a look at a feature article in their latest issue.

I usually pick up the magazine every now and again, and mostly find it to be a promotion of the economic ideologies condemned by various Church writings on economic and social justice. But, when I saw this latest issue, my jaw dropped at the how unapologetic the tone of the cover story struck me.

Although, after giving it some thought, I can’t say that such views are to be unexpected from a publication that was historically a cheerleader for British imperial expansion. (Note the author’s treatment on the subject of the Opium Wars)

Sure, we have freedom of press. ‘The Economist’ has their right to make such sophistic arguments. But, what I find alarming, is that the very ideology this magazine promotes is commonplace amongst academics, public officials, and financiers alike. Small wonder that the U.S. economy is disintegrating…

Perhaps, I’m making too big a deal of all this–again, I can’t express how appalled I was when I saw this–but I don’t think it would hurt for Church officials to be condemning this kind of nonsense. Anyway, what do you folks think?

 

[bhall0689]

Everything in the article was accurate, well-backed, and logical. While I do not necessarily agree with the author to the extent that we should be legalizing cocaine and heroin, I do admit that legalization of marijuana with strict regulations would dramatically decrease the crime rate in America. Think of how many drug rings would collapse, how much violence could be averted, how many jail cells in prison would be freed up to house criminals that pose a real threat to society (not just a few drug charges on their record), how many innocent lives would be saved.

Despite your views on legalization of any kind, it does not take a genius to see that the current policy on drugs is a failure, and if anything is to change, it must be drastically reformed. Now.

Linking the current economic crisis to the “irresponsibility of academics backing reform” is not only unintelligible, but frankly comical.

Marijuana is non-addicting and non-lethal. A significantly smaller number of people reported a physical dependency on marijuana than alcohol and tobacco products combined.

Could you perhaps tell me what about this article made you so “outraged?” You express your anger at the material clearly, but not why it makes you so angry.

 

[jpm1977]

I agree, with bHall. The article was well-reasoned and dispassionate and coldly and calmly made its case. Its was also clear that legalization was not viewed as “good” but as the “least bad” option. I think if you talked to many faithful and clergy in Mexico they might say the same thing. More people have been murdered due to the drug trade in Mexico (police, army, and drug dealers, but increasingly innocent civilians too) in the past year than Americans have died in the entire Iraq war. See here. Those people are killed for one reason: the demand in the US for illegal drugs. Because the drugs are illegal, when business deals for drugs go awry (someone doesn’t pay someone else, or tries to take over their “territory”), the drug dealers have no resort in the court system. Because of that and because there’s so much money at stake, lethal violence results.

This is exactly how it was in the US with alcohol during prohibition. Mobsters were murdering people by the thousands in the 1920s over disputes to do with the manufacture and distribution of alcohol. Today, how many people are murdered in alcohol-related business deals? I would say zero. The effects of alcohol itself kill thousands, of course, but your local beer distributor is likely a rich, upstanding member of the community. If a local bar doesn’t pay for its beer, he takes them to court, he doesn’t kill them. His truck drivers are good, honest, working people, not accomplices to a crime.

I don’t see any logical reason it would be any different for illegal drugs. I still wrestle with whether heroin should be legal, but marijuana and cocaine should be. With very strict controls, very high taxes, etc. (Both were legal in this country, cocaine used to be in Coca-Cola as everyone knows).

Drug use is a sin according to the catechism, but the huge amount of money you can earn from that trade lure more people (especially in Mexico) into the sin of greed, murder, and others, than would be lured into the sin of drug use if it were legal, IMHO. Plus, you can treat drug addiction, it is much more difficult to rehabilitate someone who has become a cold blooded killer.

I don’t think most people in America can fully grasp how close Mexico is to being completely being taken over by drug cartels. Cartels that would disappear overnight if their source of funding dried up. That’s what would happen if drugs were legalized. Those involved in growing, selling, etc. the drugs could be closely screened with background checks, etc. to keep criminals out of the trade.

Of course, crime will always be with us, and those cartels would move into other illegal operations, but the sheer amount of money they have would be reduced dramatically.

So I’m not angry at the Economist, in fact, as a longtime reader of this publication, I am not surprised they would take this position. It is a conservative paper, but looks at things from a very logical perspective.

 

[BillP]

Drug use is a sin according to the catechism,

Actually, I’m pretty sure the catechism is referring to illegal drugs

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

Since it is focused on the “clandestine production and trafficking”. If say, cocaine were legalized, then it would no longer be illegal and thus usage of it would fall under the same requirements of the “legal” drugs like alcohol and tobacco:

[2290](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2290.htm’) The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

So abuse of drugs is sinful, and any non-theraputic usage of illegal drugs is sinful, but moderate usage of legal drugs is okay.

 

[MJR81]

BHall,

A more thorough explanation on why I am so outraged about this article is on the way (probably later today). Right now, I am short on time.

I just want to point out a few things right now. First off, consider the author’s treatment of the Opium Wars between Britain and China. He/she claims that Britain was simply defending their ‘right to peddle’ a harmful narcotic to the Chinese. That’s like siding with a murderer on trial because he is defending his ‘right’ to commit homicide. There is no mention that China may have been asserting their JUST right to defend their population from the British pushing a harmful drug to destroy that population.

Also, for BHall, and JPM (or anyone else): does not ‘The Economist’s’ argument for why legalization is a lesser evil ring familiar of how abortion proponents will argue that legalization of abortion is better than banning it, because people are going to get illegal abortions anyway. Better to lift the ban, so the state can regulate the practice and keep it less dangerous, they say.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

BHall,

A more thorough explanation on why I am so outraged about this article is on the way (probably later today). Right now, I am short on time.

I just want to point out a few things right now. First off, consider the author’s treatment of the Opium Wars between Britain and China. He/she claims that Britain was simply defending their ‘right to peddle’ a harmful narcotic to the Chinese. That’s like siding with a murderer on trial because he is defending his ‘right’ to commit homicide. There is no mention that China may have been asserting their JUST right to defend their population from the British pushing a harmful drug to destroy that population.

Also, for BHall, and JPM (or anyone else): does not ‘The Economist’s’ argument for why legalization is a lesser evil ring familiar of how abortion proponents will argue that legalization of abortion is better than banning it, because people are going to get illegal abortions anyway. Better to lift the ban, so the state can regulate the practice and keep it less dangerous, they say.

I think you are misunderstanding both economics and the format of the magazine. One of the underlying issues is most economist believe the government does little, nothing, or has a negative effect, so they reject law as a means of changing human behavior. Thus an legal change on abortion is less significant than a behavior change on abortion.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

William F. Buckley argued in favor of legalizing drugs for a time as well, based on the practicalities of the matter. If I recall correctly, he later changed his position because of the social ramifications of legalized drugs.

 

[Oscarthecat]

BHall,

Also, for BHall, and JPM (or anyone else): does not ‘The Economist’s’ argument for why legalization is a lesser evil ring familiar of how abortion proponents will argue that legalization of abortion is better than banning it, because people are going to get illegal abortions anyway. Better to lift the ban, so the state can regulate the practice and keep it less dangerous, they say.

Not even close, because “drugs” are morally neutral, while abortion is an absolute evil.

Every justification for drug prohibition was used to promote alcohol prohibition.
Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone, the Speakeasy, and an expensive bureaucracy to stop both.
Booze back then cost significantly more than it does now because it was an inflated market.
People fought and died trying to supply or stop the supply of booze.
It is time to wake up and realize that the drug war is doing more harm than good.

I’m not sure what you’re real concern about this is…how do you envision a world where mood altering drugs are legally available?

As I see it, the people who want to use drugs are already using them- so that won’t change.

What will change is that the black market drug trade will disappear - practically overnight- along with the violence it brings.

While I would agree that drug abuse, like alcohol abuse, has the potential to do harm to families and individuals- that harm won’t be compounded by the harm done by the excessive fines and jail sentences inflicted on families and individuals now. Instead families and individuals who are succumbing to drug abuse will be able to seek out help without fear of legal consequences- as is the case with alcohol abuse now.

Law enforcement currently spends about 50% of their time and budget on drug law enforcement. That time and money will be redirected toward other crimes.

Prisons and jails will no longer be training camps for non-violent drug users and dealers, who often go to jail as small timers, and come out of jail as well connected criminals.

The overcrowding of prisons will be reduced, as they will be reserved primarily for violent offenders.

The massive cost of the failing drug war will be eliminated and those funds can be returned to tax payers or even used to fund drug education and rehab services.

 

[MJR81]

I am highly skeptical that drug legalization would make the drug mafia disappear ‘overnight’. I find this to be merely thin conjecture. Are we to assume that these individuals are in the illegal drug business because they believe so passionately in their just right to provide for the demand of their customers, whose best interest they have in mind? That they are only considered ‘criminals’ because of unjust laws designed to persecute them? And that they will lay down their arms and become upstanding, moral citizens once the ban on their illegal business practices has been lifted?

I concur with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in its report, “Organized Crime and its Threat to Security”:

“A vocal minority of pro-drug lobbyists…argue that…legalization is the solution… Lifting controls on drug use would be a cynical resignation of the state’s responsibility to protect the health of its citizens and tantamount to accepting that a portion of every generation will be lost to addiction.”

Even the author of the ‘Economist’ article admits that an “honest proponent of legalization would…assume that drug-taking as a whole would rise.”

‘The Economist’ piece also makes the claim that “[t]he production of…opium is probably about the same as it was a decade ago.” This is untrue, according to multiple drug control agencies (including the U.S. State Department’s Office of National Drug Policy). Anyone serious in studying up on the global drug problem (which the author in question is likely not) would surely come across this.

Some numbers on opium production:
From 1995-2007, world opium production increased by about 90%, and opium production in Afghanistan (which produces 92% of the world’s supply) skyrocketed by 140% from 2002-07. And, I might add, that half of this Afghan opium is produced in a little province that covers less than a tenth of Afghanistan’s territory. According to Ahmed Baheen of the Afghan Foreign Ministry, this province is currently occupied by the British military, which is deliberately turning a blind eye to the growing of the poppies. (Thomas Schweich, a State Department official claimed that British commanders are “actually issu[ing] leaflets and [purchasing] radio advertisements telling the local criminals that the British military was not part of the anti-poppy effort.”) To give the British military the benefit of the doubt, they might be under the innocent assumption that the poppies are being grown so we can have seeds on our bagels.

I also would tend to suspect that legalization (as opposed to eradicating the crops and aggressively going after the financing for the drug trade) would also be immoral on the grounds that most of the countries where these drug crops are grown are poor and have undernourished populations, and are not self sufficient in the production of many staple foods. Why should a farmer grow food to feed his nation, if the real big bucks are growing cocaine or opium?

 

[MJR81]

In addressing some particular complaints of BHall and Texas Roofer had about my comments, I want to bring up some matters of economics. Forgive me if my original post was rushed and unclear. My reference to “academics, public officials, and financiers” wasn’t just a reference to those backing drug reform as the sole cause for our economic breakdown. My reference was to the way that policy-makers and others in positions of influence or power think about what an national economy is and how it functions. This why I viewed the ‘Economist’ article’s reference to the Opium Wars to be of such importance.

The Opium Wars were about China asserting its sovereign right to protect its people from the British East India Company dumping opium on their country. In response, Queen Victoria and her government, deployed British naval forces to make war on China in ‘protection’ of the East India Company’s ‘right’ to ‘free’ trade. The British won, the East India Company got to peddle their opium, and Victoria got Hong Kong. This is not just warfare fought with big ships with big cannons, but warfare fought by the British to destroy their enemy socially and thus also culturally, largely done by addicting the Chinese to opium. I’m not arguing that the Chinese were completely innocent victims of the whole conflict, but that principle of protectionism versus free trade is really what the core issue is.

I’m going to return to this point in a moment. But I think that the following remarks from Antonio Maria Costa, director of the UNODC, (from an interview with an Austrian magazine, ‘Profil’) are necessary to quote to get at the relevance of this matter in the present time:

“[Money from the international] drug trade…is [being] fed into legal economic circulation through money laundering… The volume is imposing… [T]hese funds also ended up in the finance sector, which has been under obvious pressure [recently]…

“It appears that interbank credits have been financed by money which comes from the drug trade and other illegal activities. It is naturally hard to prove this, but there are indications that a number of banks were rescued by these means…

“In many cases, drug money is currently the only liquid investment capital…[and] liquidity was one of the biggest problems the banking system had. Therefore, this liquid capital became an important factor…

“The financial crisis is providing an extraordinary opportunity for even greater mafia penetration of cash-strapped financial houses. With the crisis choking lending, these cash-rich criminal groups have emerged as the only source of credit…

“Bankers [have] created monstrous financial instruments whose size, complexity, and ownership nobody could understand or master. So many of them have engaged in something both stupid and diabolical. They have allowed the world’s criminal economy to become part of the global economy. Investment bankers, fund managers, commodity traders, and realtors—together with auditors, accountants, and lawyers—have assisted syndicates to launder the proceeds from crime and become legitimate partners in business. In most cases, the predicated crime was mafia-type… In other cases, [it was] the silent yet pernicious violence against national treasuries and against the public services that remain unfunded…

“Complex financial instruments have made financial markets deliberately less transparent and more accessible to wrong-doing.”

If one digests what Costa lays out, the issue again becomes clear: protectionism and national sovereignty versus ‘free’ trade and globalization. National governments are discouraged from asserting any strong regulatory measures over global finance—all in the name of the ‘free market’. Because, we can all assume, that they have nothing but the best interests of the world and all its people in mind.

Now, toward the end of the ‘Economist’ article, the author states: “It is not the state’s job to stop [consumers of illegal drugs from deriving enjoyment from them.]”

After all, that is the core principle of a ‘free’ market, isn’t it?

For the record, I do not believe that the only alternative to free market capitalism is socialism/Marxism/communism/whatever other ism you want to give it.

For the latter part of the 19th century, as well as under the Franklin Roosevelt Administration, when we were a protectionist economy, the United States grew into the most powerful agro-industrial force that the world had known at during those times. This is an economic model those aforementioned academics, public officials, and financiers need to study.

Keep in mind that in many various Papal and other Church writings on social and economic justice, “market neo-liberalism” and “unbridled capitalism” have been condemned probably as much as socialism and communism.

And that’s my problem with ‘The Economist’.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I am highly skeptical that drug legalization would make the drug mafia disappear ‘overnight’. I find this to be merely thin conjecture. Are we to assume that these individuals are in the illegal drug business because they believe so passionately in their just right to provide for the demand of their customers, whose best interest they have in mind? That they are only considered ‘criminals’ because of unjust laws designed to persecute them? And that they will lay down their arms and become upstanding, moral citizens once the ban on their illegal business practices has been lifted?

Why are you skeptical?
What happened to booze runners during alcohol prohibition? What about moonshiners?
Once the money dries up, the criminal networks can’t sustain themselves and move on to other things, or nothing at all.

I concur with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in its report, “Organized Crime and its Threat to Security”:

“A vocal minority of pro-drug lobbyists…argue that…legalization is the solution… Lifting controls on drug use would be a cynical resignation of the state’s responsibility to protect the health of its citizens and tantamount to accepting that a portion of every generation will be lost to addiction.”

This rationale equates to “we can’t give up because it will look like we couldn’t handle it.”
That isn’t a good reason to continue to put officers at risk, waste billions of dollars, and provide defacto financial support in the form of artificially inflating sales prices for criminal organizations that would not exist if not for this prohibition.

Even the author of the ‘Economist’ article admits that an “honest proponent of legalization would…assume that drug-taking as a whole would rise.”

Probably, but they said the same thing about ending alcohol prohibition- I think that we, as a society, will get through it without everyone becoming hopeless drug addicts.
I, for one, know that I would have no interest in using leisure drugs if they became legal.

I also would tend to suspect that legalization (as opposed to eradicating the crops and aggressively going after the financing for the drug trade) would also be immoral on the grounds that most of the countries where these drug crops are grown are poor and have undernourished populations, and are not self sufficient in the production of many staple foods. Why should a farmer grow food to feed his nation, if the real big bucks are growing cocaine or opium?

This is a baffling statement. Are you saying that legalization is immoral because it would devalue the drug-trade crops grown in impoverished countries?

That’s absurd. Yes, the crops would lose value, because they would no longer be traded on the black market. On the other hand, the farmers would gain legitimacy in the world market, and have a much better opportunity to engage in trade with legitimate, non-violent corporate entities rather than their present “business partners” who tend to be a bit violent. For example, it isn’t uncommon for drug cartels to execute farmers and/or families of famers who don’t grow enough, who ask for higher rates, or who want to grow food crops.

I think that these farmers might welcome the opportunity to be free of the threat of what drug cartels could do to them, not to mention the threat of what happens when drug enforcement officials routinely confiscate their crops.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am highly skeptical that drug legalization would make the drug mafia disappear ‘overnight’. I find this to be merely thin conjecture. Are we to assume that these individuals are in the illegal drug business because they believe so passionately in their just right to provide for the demand of their customers, whose best interest they have in mind? …

I think the logic involves selling legalized drugs in a free market drugs, these drugs sell at cost thus other options or work are ready substitutes. While keeping drugs illegal inflates the prices to 100 times or more so what substitute work pays equally well to that?

“A vocal minority of pro-drug lobbyists…argue that…legalization is the solution… Lifting controls on drug use would be a cynical resignation of the state’s responsibility to protect the health of its citizens and tantamount to accepting that a portion of every generation will be lost to addiction.”[excerpt from UNODC] …

The fundamental problem here is the assumption the state can change human behavior through legislation. For example today’s US drug laws were enacted to stop drug abuse, so if the theory is correct today we are free of drug abuse. Is that correct?

From 1995-2007, world opium production increased by about 90%…

There you go, the war on drugs did not drop drug use, desire, or production

………………………… Why should a farmer grow food to feed his nation, if the real big bucks are growing cocaine or opium?

Actually you are very close here, who is in authority to tell the farmer what he must do instead of what he should do.

…………………………… I think that the following remarks from Antonio Maria Costa, director of the UNODC, (from an interview with an Austrian magazine, ‘Profil’) are necessary to quote to get at the relevance of this matter in the present time: …………………“[Money from the international] drug trade…is [being] fed into legal economic circulation through money laundering… The volume is imposing…………………………………“It appears that interbank credits have been financed by money which comes from the drug trade and other illegal activities”. …………………

The issue here is correct and serious. A large part of the issue is the reward the outlaws get from taking the risk of making illegal drugs is too large to ignore. So here are some issues needed to help the outlaws stay in charge 1)the drugs need to stay illegal 2) Law enforcement needs to greatly, greatly pursue the outlaws, and 3)the demand for drugs needs to stay high. If those three things exist the outlaws are very very powerful. Remove any of these three things and price collapses. Remove both illegal status and heavy police involvement and you have legal drugs sold near cost to customers

……….If one digests what Costa lays out, the issue again becomes clear: protectionism and national sovereignty versus ‘free’ trade and globalization. National governments are discouraged from asserting any strong regulatory measures over global finance—all in the name of the ‘free market’. Because, we can all assume, that they have nothing but the best interests of the world and all its people in mind. … ……………….For the latter part of the 19th century, as well as under the Franklin Roosevelt Administration, when we were a protectionist economy, the United States grew into the most powerful agro-industrial force that the world had known at during those times. This is an economic model those aforementioned academics, public officials, and financiers need to study.

With this I disagree. One of the primary reasons for both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War were trade restrictions. Before the Revolutionary War England restricted many trades with the colonies. The Civil War had at its heart the issue of import/export taxes (tariffs). So let’s not jump too quickly to the idea tariff=good. Free trade is actually the best coordinator of wealth. The confusion many have is if you have little of value to trade the market can be cruel. So trade of professional services and high quality goods as medical, military, weapons, food, medicine, etc can produce great wealth. So what do the poor of Sudan have to offer? (very little)

Hope that helps

 

[Benadam]

the sad fact is there is war machine in the US that is feeding on vast amounts of resources in the US. Huge beuracracies depend on the infusion of ‘criminals’ to keep safely away from us and require us to be continually educated so this perpetual war doesn’t overwhelm our society. They defend us against the enemy in this war on drugs and they require that it remains an enemy. If we aren’t treated as an enemy then there is no reason to call it a war and no reason for a huge beauracracy to study the enemy , track the enemies movements , engage the enemy in battle ,capture him and keep him safely locked up.

I would like to use the money in a more functional approach which would not cost a thing compared to the big bird eating us out of house and home now. That big bird don’t want drugs to be legal cuz it needs a war.

 

[Namesake]

If there are any familiar with ‘The Economist’ out there (or even if you aren’t familiar), take a look at a feature article in their latest issue.

I usually pick up the magazine every now and again, and mostly find it to be a promotion of the economic ideologies condemned by various Church writings on economic and social justice. But, when I saw this latest issue, my jaw dropped at the how unapologetic the tone of the cover story struck me.

Although, after giving it some thought, I can’t say that such views are to be unexpected from a publication that was historically a cheerleader for British imperial expansion. (Note the author’s treatment on the subject of the Opium Wars)

Sure, we have freedom of press. ‘The Economist’ has their right to make such sophistic arguments. But, what I find alarming, is that the very ideology this magazine promotes is commonplace amongst academics, public officials, and financiers alike. Small wonder that the U.S. economy is disintegrating…

Perhaps, I’m making too big a deal of all this–again, I can’t express how appalled I was when I saw this–but I don’t think it would hurt for Church officials to be condemning this kind of nonsense. Anyway, what do you folks think?

Even as a very strong Catholic William F. Buckley was in favor of decriminalizing drugs, for impeccably logical and conservative reasons. I agree with what he wrote on the subject 100%.

 

[MJR81]

the sad fact is there is war machine in the US that is feeding on vast amounts of resources in the US. Huge beuracracies depend on the infusion of ‘criminals’ to keep safely away from us and require us to be continually educated so this perpetual war doesn’t overwhelm our society. They defend us against the enemy in this war on drugs and they require that it remains an enemy. If we aren’t treated as an enemy then there is no reason to call it a war and no reason for a huge beauracracy to study the enemy , track the enemies movements , engage the enemy in battle ,capture him and keep him safely locked up.

I would like to use the money in a more functional approach which would not cost a thing compared to the big bird eating us out of house and home now. That big bird don’t want drugs to be legal cuz it needs a war.

Perhaps I should have made this crystal clear, but I am not of the opinion that our drug policy has been effective. But, legalization is the wrong solution. If anything, for more effective anti-drug policy, we need to look in the opposite direction–a more aggressive war on drugs.

This why what Costa said about the drug trade taking advantage of an unregulated financial system is so important. If we got really serious, and went after off-shore financial centers and had more oversight and regulation of the system (exactly what ‘The Economist’ does NOT want), then we could really take this problem on, because we could better identify who the enemy is, and how he operates.

That’s one front. Other fronts would include eradication of the crops (which we are obviously NOT doing in Afghanistan) and utilizing military surveillance to its fullest potential.

Now, I don’t believe the U.S. has a right to go anywhere it pleases in the world and engage in such operations, without first exploring all possibilities of collaboration with the sovereign governments of these nations.

Also, I really don’t know much about the bootleggers during prohibition and how they operated… But, it seems to be a bold assumption to make a correlation between Al Capone, etc., and the global drug trade, without critical study… Do they even operate the same way?

 

[Benadam]

Perhaps I should have made this crystal clear, but I am not of the opinion that our drug policy has been effective. But, legalization is the wrong solution. If anything, for more effective anti-drug policy, we need to look in the opposite direction–a more aggressive war on drugs.

This why what Costa said about the drug trade taking advantage of an unregulated financial system is so important. If we got really serious, and went after off-shore financial centers and had more oversight and regulation of the system (exactly what ‘The Economist’ does NOT want), then we could really take this problem on, because we could better identify who the enemy is, and how he operates.

That’s one front. Other fronts would include eradication of the crops (which we are obviously NOT doing in Afghanistan) and utilizing military surveillance to its fullest potential.

Now, I don’t believe the U.S. has a right to go anywhere it pleases in the world and engage in such operations, without first exploring all possibilities of collaboration with the sovereign governments of these nations.

Also, I really don’t know much about the bootleggers during prohibition and how they operated… But, it seems to be a bold assumption to make a correlation between Al Capone, etc., and the global drug trade, without critical study… Do they even operate the same way?

I don’t doubt our policy. I doubt the purpose of the efforts are about resolving a problem. This ‘war’ on drugs has become an institutionalized enabler. Ask a drug dealer if they would want drugs to be legal. Ask a civil servant who’s career would end if drugs were considered a health issue. A warden who’s prison is built on the numbers that require a drug war. How about the products that could be easier and cheaper if hemp were not the taboo the marketers have twisted it into.

Marijuana is really the only illegal drug, the others controlled. It really wasn’t about it’s damaging effects on youth… And that’s my point. It’s not about stopping the use of drugs. The right to do what I will to my body is fought for if I want an abortion, it’s business, but the same moral value system will make it a serious crime to inhale smoke with it. It’s business.

Nope nope this is definitely not looking like protecting human rights and dignity. It’s about business. Alot of business. Like expecting a windshield installing company to be the best choice to make roads pebble free and windshields unbreakable. That’s what we do when we expect law enforcement to be the best choice in stopping drug use.

You think you can get the institutions that are built around a war to intensify their effort to end it. Good luck. They have been appearing to do that for decades now. I for one am tired of filling up prisons with people who have relatively mild pathological problems.

When you make an act a crime that doesn’t flow from a criminal mind the damage to society unfolds exponentially. And it is. The real crime,that is causing the ugliness we see, is much more buried and insidious than any sin against the body could be.

 

[jman507]

Does anyone have any studies about what criminal activity indirectly due to drugs? Although it’s ancadotal, I think I remember my brother talking about as a public defender he had a substantial amount of cases dealing with people who were drunk or high.

 

[jpm1977]

Drugs were legalized in Portugal several years ago–even cocaine and heroin–, and so we will soon see the first studies of the empirical effects of legalization in an industrialized country. There’s some more about it here.

Also, keep an eye on C-SPAN on April 3, 2009 at noon Eastern, as a forum on the results of drug legalization in Portugal may be televised.

Btw, the event is sponsored by the libertarian and generally right-wing CATO institute, not a Democratic or left-wing organization, so lest there be any inclination to engage in the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger, I just wanted to put that to bed right away.

Anyone in DC that might want to attend can find details here.

There will be some who say that the issue is one of right and wrong, and so even if the evidence indicates that legalization empirically reduces crime, addiction, disease, etc., it is still not justified. I can respect that view, but to me, there is really no scientific basis for the Church’s distinction between alcohol and illegal drugs. They both can intoxicate in excess, so I don’t see the issue as being a pure moral one like abortion. This is a policy issue in my view. But, I await the evidence. I don’t have a clear opinion one way or another at this point, but looking at what is going on in Mexico and other places due to the “War on Drugs” makes me lean in favor of some form of legalization or reduced criminalization.

 

[jilly4ski]

Hmmm, I would be skeptical of any plan to ‘legalize’ drugs, because I have heard of nothing that would replace the current system.
We don’t sell tobacco or alcohol or prescription drugs without regulation. Would there be an age limit, quantity of purchase limit, usage limit? It has taken many laws and many years to place these kinds of limits on alcohol and tobacco usage. Drunk driving laws, age restrictions on sale and use, most are newer laws enacted in a hodgepodge patchwork way after 1970 and each state has their own specific laws. We don’t give out perscription drugs to just anyone who wants to buy them, because there is a need for theraputic drugs to be regulated for the safety of those taking the drugs. We know the effects of illegal drugs only on addicted users, but what about long term light users. Does taking cocaine everyday for 5 years cause serious health risks? If someone dies or becomes injured from taking a narcotic not prescribed to them, can they sue the manufacturer or seller of that drug?

There would still need to be some regulation on drugs, even if they were made legal. And as long as some regualtion is necessary for the ‘health and welfare’ of society there will continue to be illegal buying, selling, and use of these drugs. The highly addictive nature of narcotics makes it likely that the illegal selling of these drugs would continue under ‘legalized’ system. Kids are so willing to get high, that they use legal products (like paints and household cleaners, and their parents perscriptions). But why would they use those products when they have easy legal access to the real drugs that actually make them high.

 

[jpm1977]

Hmmm, I would be skeptical of any plan to ‘legalize’ drugs, because I have heard of nothing that would replace the current system.
We don’t sell tobacco or alcohol or prescription drugs without regulation. Would there be an age limit, quantity of purchase limit, usage limit? It has taken many laws and many years to place these kinds of limits on alcohol and tobacco usage. Drunk driving laws, age restrictions on sale and use, most are newer laws enacted in a hodgepodge patchwork way after 1970 and each state has their own specific laws. We don’t give out perscription drugs to just anyone who wants to buy them, because there is a need for theraputic drugs to be regulated for the safety of those taking the drugs. We know the effects of illegal drugs only on addicted users, but what about long term light users. Does taking cocaine everyday for 5 years cause serious health risks? If someone dies or becomes injured from taking a narcotic not prescribed to them, can they sue the manufacturer or seller of that drug?

There would still need to be some regulation on drugs, even if they were made legal. And as long as some regualtion is necessary for the ‘health and welfare’ of society there will continue to be illegal buying, selling, and use of these drugs. The highly addictive nature of narcotics makes it likely that the illegal selling of these drugs would continue under ‘legalized’ system. Kids are so willing to get high, that they use legal products (like paints and household cleaners, and their parents perscriptions). But why would they use those products when they have easy legal access to the real drugs that actually make them high.

Although the details of regulation of drugs if they were legalized is not fully fleshed out, I think it is assumed that if legalized, they would be heavily regulated, heavily taxed, not easily available, and that that treatment for addiction would also be available. I would guess that they would be available differently based on the drug. Perhaps you could buy marijuana if you were 21, with ID. Cocaine, if it were legalized, might only be available at certain stores, where you could only purchase a small amount and would have to log the purchase, etc. These are just guesses, but most of what I read assumes a high degree of regulation.

A writer at Foreign Policy has identified the “War on Drugs” on one of America’s three “dumbest” policies. You can read it here.