August 19, 2008
Were We Talking About Legalizing Drugs?
Here's an argument for moving it higher on the priority list; I'm surprised I didn't think of this, but I was probably already seeing red from the Feds' infringement upon the rights of Californians, so I wasn't able to "zoom out" and look at the international picture.
The War on Drugs is even more destructive when one looks beyond the U.S. borders—and, within and without those borders, when one takes a peek at where that "black-market premium" is going:
The Taliban is able to sustain their operational pace in fighting against ISAF and the supported Kabul government because they have been able to tap into the cash flows generated by the opium/heroin production and distribution markets. Opium eradication efforts sponsored by either the Kabul government or foreign military forces pushes farmers to turn non-state actors for protection. Those non-state actors provide protection for a cash fee and temporary loyalty. The loyalty buys silence and logistical support while the cash provides weapons, corruption and a means of making credible promises.
We also know that prohibition has not been successful in eliminating drug use in the United States or other rich nations. It is a moral/political posture of luxury that may bite us in our ass as it fuels a visible insurgency in Afghanistan, potentially funds Hezbollah in Lebanon and could potentially lead to a massive failed state in Mexico with the attendant mass migration flows that would entail.
Bringing the drug market into the overt and open white market and away from the black market would be a significant blow to these insurgencies. Legalizing most narcotics and then taxing them at a high rate is a viable option. It will strengthen weak states where the United States has a strong interest for stability. This will occur by removing a significant funding stream for the guerrillas and transferring it to the state.
Fester, quoted above, was in turn riffing off of this piece from the Small Wars Journal. Read both articles, mkay?
Along with energy policy, drug legalization should be placed within the interconnected set of issues that affect national security, and shame on me for not noting that when I blogged about the "War on Drugs" earlier in the day.
Via Insty.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
05:54 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 383 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The strange thing is that you prosecute and you say you wage war and allathat... but you don't kill 'em off. Or even threaten to kill 'em off.
Now, take Malaysia and Singapore (heck, even Indonesia). Draconian as anything. Get caught with drugs, you face a MANDATORY death sentence, preferably carried out within 3 weeks. Not to say you won't find drugs here, but you'd have to work really, really hard.
I happen to hate drugs. With a vengeance. Alcohol and caffeine I can live with. Opium, barely - and I hate it because of the Brits. All the narcotics and amphetamines and crap, I would prefer if someone actually A-Bombed the damned people who make the stuff. But on principle, I believe regulations should be relaxed for medical usage.
Point is, if you lynched every druggie distributor you came across, or threatened to (and actually did a large majority of 'em in), I'd say your War on Drugs would see a whole lot more success, Tom Clancy style.
Posted by: Gregory at August 20, 2008 02:14 AM (cjwF0)
2
Um. But if we did that, we wouldn't, like HAVE drugs around.
It is, as Benny Hill would say, like burning down the house to get a piece of toast.
No Ritalin for people with ADD? No SSRIs for people with OCD? No sleeping pills for people with Delayed Sleep Onset Syndrome? No pain killers for people with . . . pain?
No weed for cancer patients?
Come on, Gregory: let's go all the way, and outlaw antibiotics.
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 20, 2008 02:32 AM (TpmQk)
3
And I'm perfectly willing to use some of the savings/tax revenue to set up more clinics.
That is what I meant by harm reduction. Yeah, kinda liberal sounding to me too, but not really. Because the net effect is likely to be less government spending, lower taxes, and less government intrusion into the lives of citizens. (Not to mention actually *helping* the people who don't want to be addicted anymore.)
Which, last time I checked was a pretty conservative set of ideals. (Not that I have any illusions about most Republicans being conservative anymore these days.)
Gregory, where does that leave you on the weed? It's certainly less harmful than opium, and generally more benign than alcohol.
Posted by: Desert Cat at August 20, 2008 07:15 AM (6go9w)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
28kb generated in CPU 0.0664, elapsed 0.1852 seconds.
209 queries taking 0.1724 seconds, 460 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
