"Lesh jus' legalize drugs (hic) it worked with booze."
Posted on 02/23/2006 7:56:18 AM PST by JTN
Economist Milton Friedman predicted in Newsweek nearly 34 years ago that Richard Nixon's ambitious "global war against drugs" would be a failure. Much evidence today suggests that he was right. But the war rages on with little mainstream challenge of its basic weapon, prohibition.
To be sure, Mr. Friedman wasn't the only critic. William Buckley's National Review declared a decade ago that the U.S. had "lost" the drug war, bolstering its case with testimony from the likes of Joseph D. McNamara, a former police chief in Kansas City, Mo., and San Jose, Calif. But today discussion of the war's depressing cost-benefit ratio is being mainly conducted in the blogosphere, where the tone is predominantly libertarian. In the broader polity, support for the great Nixon crusade remains sufficiently strong to discourage effective counterattacks.
In broaching this subject, I offer the usual disclaimer. One beer before dinner is sufficient to my mind-bending needs. I've never sampled any of the no-no stuff and have no desire to do so. So let's proceed to discuss this emotion-laden issue as objectively as possible.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Ping
--excellent post--
Last few sentences are the most important IMO, I added the * for emphasis:
"To be precise, the question should be do you favor legalization or decriminalization of the sale and use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines?"
"A large percentage of Americans will probably say no, mainly because they are law-abiding people who maintain high moral and ethical standards and don't want to surrender to a small minority that flouts the laws, whether in the ghettos of Washington D.C. or Beverly Hills salons. The concern about damaging society's fabric is legitimate. **** But another question needs to be asked: Is that fabric being damaged now? ****"
Sadly, this is a subject which can almost certainly never be discussed objectively.
Too bad the guy in your pic isn't drinking booze - he's drinking beer. ;)
bump for later - this should be good!
Why not just legalise the two main drugs that are payrolling most of the drug cartels? It should provide an immediate impact on the smugglers.
Great article. The thought of freedom and adults making choices for themselves should attract the warriors and get them foaming at the mouth. I'm sure they'll want us to sell away more of our liberties to prevent somebody somewhere from getting high.
I'm sure it can be. It is possible, I suppose. But, in the 435,878,909,342,873,876 WOD threads I have read through here, it certainly hasn't.
MrLeroy is in the keywords. Who thinks I'm MrLeroy?
Make popcorn.
But the author does not define "failure" or "lost" or "isn't working". Just buzzwords that we're supposed to read and say, "Yeah, he's right! It's a failure! We've lost! It isn't working!".
What a crock.
Now, if he means that the WOD has not stopped drug use 100%, sure. The WOD is a failure. As are our efforts against against everything else from cancer to illiteracy.
So that means we should quit? Well, he answers that himself when he says that a large percentage of Americans will probably say no to the question of, "Do you favor legalization or decriminalization of the sale and use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines?"
Personally, I'd have left out the word "probably".
A) The votes aren't there.
B) The reason the votes aren't there is that the public doesn't want them
C) The cartels would simply focus on the remaining illegal drugs.
NO. It's a boiler maker. There is a shot of whisky in it.
His definition may be the one used by such figures as Dennis Hastert and Newt Gingrich. There have been numerous references from the prohibitionists to "winning" the war on drugs, and to a "drug-free America".
Of course these goals are impossible, but much of the support for prohibition comes from belief in these "buzzwords" and that winning the war on drugs is achievable. These public figures need to be asked why they are promising something they cannot deliver.
loserdopertarian (someone has to say it - OK they don't but they will anyway)
Because elected officials are too chicken-s--t to bring the issue to the floor.
B) The reason the votes aren't there is that the public doesn't want them
How do you know if the public opposes it if the issue isn't brought up in the first place?
C) The cartels would simply focus on the remaining illegal drugs.
What dopehead is going to waste their money and risk their life buying illegal drugs when they can save and get the real stuff for far less cheaper at a pharmacy or drugstore?
In your opinion, when would the War on Drugs be won? Isn't that the real question?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.