Radley Balko over at Reason summarizes the collateral damage that has been incurred in our nation's drug war. These casualties include police militarization, repeated foreign policy travesties (read: the entirety of Latin America has good reasons to hate us), the incarceration of hundred of thousands for nonviolent offences, and impediments to the use of to adequate pain control in medicine. Oh, and the cherry of top of this horrid sundae is the abdication of the rule of law.
It is a pretty sad read.
But here is the kicker:
Even if the drug war were working -- even if all the horrible things the federal government says are caused by illicit drugs were accurate (and some of them admittedly are), and even if the war on drugs were proving successful in eradicating or even significantly diminishing our access to those drugs -- you'd have a difficult time arguing that the benefits would be worth the costs.
But the kicker is, of course, that it isn't working. Most of the federal government claims about the evils associated with illicit drugs are either exaggerated or misapplied effects not of the drugs, but of the government's prohibition of them.
More to the point, none of this is working, even taking drug war advocates' positions at face value. It is as easy to achieve an illegal high today as it was in 1981, as it was in 1971, as it was in 1915. The vast majority of you reading this either know where to get a bag of marijuana, or know someone who knows where to get one. Specific drugs come in and out of vogue, but the desire to alter one's consciousness, to escape life's drab monotonies, or just to call in a different mindset is as strong and pervasive as it's ever been, going back to the stone age. It's also just as easy to fulfill.
Read the whole thing.
I can think of good reasons why we would want limit the use of drugs like h****n. I have seen the destructiveness of the user's life and those around them that such drugs can wreak. If I had my way, drugs like h****n would not be available in the world. But I am not omnipotent and neither is the government.
All people must make choices about costs and benefits. The key question is: has the drug war as a means been worth the cost to meet those ends -- particularly considering its less than admirable effectiveness?
Drug war advocates might respond: so you are just going to throw in the towel and give up!? I have two responses to this. 1) I know a lost cause when I see one. You can't ban stupid, and that is precisely what drug war advocates are trying to do. 2) Drug war advocates have become overwhelmed by their own metaphor -- their own "the ends justify the means" logic -- such that they have frankly stopped considering that any other policy options exist.
Other options do exist -- including legalization, regulation and taxation. The big question is just how much collateral damage we are going to accept before we try them.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: ScienceBlogs
Author: Jake Young
Contact: ScienceBlogs
Copyright: 2009 ScienceBlogs LLC
Website: The Collateral Damage of the Drug War
It is a pretty sad read.
But here is the kicker:
Even if the drug war were working -- even if all the horrible things the federal government says are caused by illicit drugs were accurate (and some of them admittedly are), and even if the war on drugs were proving successful in eradicating or even significantly diminishing our access to those drugs -- you'd have a difficult time arguing that the benefits would be worth the costs.
But the kicker is, of course, that it isn't working. Most of the federal government claims about the evils associated with illicit drugs are either exaggerated or misapplied effects not of the drugs, but of the government's prohibition of them.
More to the point, none of this is working, even taking drug war advocates' positions at face value. It is as easy to achieve an illegal high today as it was in 1981, as it was in 1971, as it was in 1915. The vast majority of you reading this either know where to get a bag of marijuana, or know someone who knows where to get one. Specific drugs come in and out of vogue, but the desire to alter one's consciousness, to escape life's drab monotonies, or just to call in a different mindset is as strong and pervasive as it's ever been, going back to the stone age. It's also just as easy to fulfill.
Read the whole thing.
I can think of good reasons why we would want limit the use of drugs like h****n. I have seen the destructiveness of the user's life and those around them that such drugs can wreak. If I had my way, drugs like h****n would not be available in the world. But I am not omnipotent and neither is the government.
All people must make choices about costs and benefits. The key question is: has the drug war as a means been worth the cost to meet those ends -- particularly considering its less than admirable effectiveness?
Drug war advocates might respond: so you are just going to throw in the towel and give up!? I have two responses to this. 1) I know a lost cause when I see one. You can't ban stupid, and that is precisely what drug war advocates are trying to do. 2) Drug war advocates have become overwhelmed by their own metaphor -- their own "the ends justify the means" logic -- such that they have frankly stopped considering that any other policy options exist.
Other options do exist -- including legalization, regulation and taxation. The big question is just how much collateral damage we are going to accept before we try them.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: ScienceBlogs
Author: Jake Young
Contact: ScienceBlogs
Copyright: 2009 ScienceBlogs LLC
Website: The Collateral Damage of the Drug War
