The disruption we've created in Columbia has torn that nation apart.
Your suggesting that there would be no gurrillas if we just allowed the cocaine traffic to flourish? Wouldn't the drug czars just own the government and run it like the Mafia then?
Yes. If cocaine were worth no more than coffee there wouldn't be any drug czars or any need for guerrillas.
Because the first and only thing you try doesn't work perfectly you stop trying?People have tried various forms of decriminalizing the use of hard drugs. The problem with them is that the tolerance tends to increase with usage. England tried to have regestered addicts who got regular limited amounts of heroin, for example, cheap or free from the government. Of course, they just used this as a subsidy of their total habit, and increased their usage by buying more on the street.
Where in hell did you get the idea that I think there is an easy answer? If there is an easiest answer, it's what we are doing now. Declare a prohibition and throw everyone and their brother in jail.
And if you can coat rural Columbia with Round-Up, why can't you do the
same for Afghanistan?
I'd like a source that shows that at least the majority of rural Columbia has been defoliated. Afganistan is a poor country that can barely feed itself. A cash crop like poppies can make a farmer relatively rich. It takes a very repressive regieme to keep virtually everyone from trying to better their financial position this way
What I find troublesome with your position is that you seem to suggest that there is an easy answer to the drug problem. Just let people use whatever they want in whatever quantities they want. The difficulty with this is
1) It interferes with the ability to work, so the money has to come from someplace else
Just because drugs are decriminalized doesn't mean drug testing would cease or that drug usage - especially hard drugs - would become socially acceptable. Look how we've stigmatized cigarette smoking - and drastically reduced the number of people who smoke.
2) Unless subsidized by the government, it will still cost money.
The government could do a hell of a lot of subsidizing with the money they save from ending interdiction.
3) If cheap, people will tend to keep on increasing their dosage until its near fatal, or at least its no longer cheap.
Which people? All people? I admit that there are problems in this regard, but they are no greater than the problems we now face. How much better is it to just throw people in jail.
4) There is a strong association with hard drugs and other crimes.
That's mostly because they are illegal and hard to get.
There
is a strong correlation between crack and violent behavior.
Yea, crack is bad news. So is alcohol.
Booze and grass are one thing, there is at least a significant fraction of folks who use/used those in a non-addictive manner. But, the fact that very liberal European countries have reversed the trend towards decriminalization of all drugs should be considered. My understanding is that, when Amsterdam decriminalized all behavior associated with drugs, the drug addicts overwhelmed the town. When New York cracked down, Time Square became someplace you could go with your teenage kids with at night.
Pun not intended, I hope. 8^)
My positiojn is not really supportive of the war on drugs; there are plenty of problems with it. As I stated before, drawing the line after instead of before grass seems very reasonable. But, I do think that the position that legalizing the sale of all addictive drugs would result in a far worse state of the nation than what we have now.
Well then we agree. I wouldn't legalize. Not even pot. I would decriminalize and divert money spent on interdiction on education and rehab.
I would control the source of drug plants such that their cultivation was no more or less profitable than other cash crops.
I would enlist the considerable talents of our sales/advertising community to help educate the public and to stigmatize drug use.
I would use the considerable talents of our medical community to take what we've learned about drug use - why we desire them, how they effect us, how the harm or don't harm us, and put the information and any more we can glean from a vigorous research program to use on solving the problem long term.
Does that sound simple? No friggin way. It would be very difficult, but it's a damned sight better than what we're doing now to solve the problem, which is in many cases either counterproductive or worthless.
And by the way, just in case someone has the impression that I am against current drug laws because I'm a user: caffeine (way too much) and alcohol (very little) are the only non medicinal drugs I use (and I use as little as the medicinal variety as I can).
Doug
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
