The War On Drugs, is starting to look like the Wars on Vietnam and Iraq: unwinnable, expensive and frankly we're wondering why we started 'em in the first place. Speaking personally I've been wondering about the efficacy of the war on drugs for years. I come from a gene pool with a tendency toward addictive behaviors and some of my relatives have hurt themselves with legal drugs like alcohol, while others have hurt themselves with illegal drugs, and the availability and damage has been roughly the same in either case. Furthermore, fear of the breaking the law hasn't had any effect.
Except for me, by the way. It seems to have skipped a generation in my case, though I've got a jones for sugar that even I can't believe.
Anyway, making certain drugs illegal has only had the effect of raising their price while depriving the state of a chance to earn tax revenue from them. For this reason cash-strapped California is throwing around the idea taxing marijuana sales; further ideas about this can be found here. It would be great if nationally we could just relax drug laws and make them legal and safer. We'd have more resources to devote to violent crime, and more luxury tax money besides.
Would it cause an increase in drug use? Don't think so. People who don't want to smoke crack now aren't going to say, "well, now that it's legal maybe just this once." People who don't drive while they're drunk around going to smoke joints on their commute home. Besides, I'm perfectly fine with the idea of THAT being illegal. If we use alcohol laws as the template to regulate ALL recreational drugs, I bet we'll be a much stronger country.
Monday, March 02, 2009
The Drugs Won
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Is the War on Poverty a success or failure, Piker?
Time to throw in the towel there as well?
I'd venture a bet that the War on Poverty has cost more than any other "war" we've waged, with less to show for it.
So should we stop fightint that war as well?
I take your point, but there are many ways to fight drug addiction without arresting addicts. You may recall that prohibition didn't put a big dent in alcoholism.
Thinking outside the box, maybe the solution to the war on poverty is to incarcerate the poor! They'd at least stop having to worry about food and shelter. And it would finally eliminate those entitlement programs you're so concerned about.
Seriously, the war on drugs has not slowed the rise of drug use, but it has provided a source on income to criminals. We legalize drugs, tax them, and put a portion of the taxes toward rehabilitation and education programs. Crime goes down, we steal from future generations a bit less. I can't see a downside.
"Like" Vietnam? You mean we "lost" it because the liberals retreated after we won?
Both the "war" on drugs and the "war" on poverty have ost.
I am for disbanding both.
You take my point, yet don't answer the question. How typical.
First off, I am more Libertarian than Conservative on the issue of legalized drugs.
I'm also a realist.
Mary Jane won't be legal for quite some time, for one simple reason: you can't regulate what people can make themselves, for their own use.
I can grow tobacco in my backyard, but the quantities needed to make a few packs of cigarettes is too much. I can home-brew my own beer, but don't have the room for a system big enough for more than just simple use.
I could however, grow a few stalks of weed in my backyard, and "feed" the neighborhood. The "regulate and tax it" argument doesn't work well with pot, cause you wouldn't have to go an buy it.
Sure, there would be a market for it (different varieties, "flavors", etc), but how many millions woukld be lost to home growers?
Before welfare was introduced in this Country, neighbors and churchs helped out those in need. The family/person being helped also WANTED to be off that aid ASAP.
I have no problem lending a helping hand, but ther should be limits on it, like unemployment benefits. Do you honestly think that if unemployment didn't run out, people wouldn't stay on it for as long as possible?
They are millions of examples of people on welfare that limit what jobs they will take, how many hours they will work, so they don't lose their benefits.
Now we have the Octo-Mom bringing this dirty laundry into view.
How is she any different than the single mother that purposely gets pregnant (again), just to get more aid?
The only difference with Octo, is that she had all those kids at once, and was trying for a reality tv show.
There are millions of Octo moms out there, but they are "only" Quad mom or Trey Mom.
Limit the length of the benefits, and the problem will begin to go away.
Even if no marijuana is sold over-the-counter, even if everyone grows their own or buys through unauthorized sources, society would still see a benefit through decreased law enforcement costs.
I'm interested in this thing you said:
"Limit the length of the benefits, and the problem will begin to go away."
I'm not so sure about that. Before welfare, there was poverty; now that there is welfare, there is still poverty. Your objection, I think, is that you are forced to help the poor instead of volunteering to do it. A valid viewpoint. Personally, I don't mind it so much. And I remind you that charitable contributions are tax deductible, so either way the government is subsidizing the poor; welfare just makes the aid more predictable and reliable.
By the way, since you're worried about me not answering the (rhetorical) question: We shouldn't stop fighting the war on poverty, nor should we incarcerate people for being poor.
Oh and Publius - like I keep saying, they have less taxation and less social programs in Mexico. If THAT'S how you want the US to be run, well, it's so much cheaper to just move there. I say go for it.
Piker:
Unemployment benefits have an expiration date. Why aren't all the people who have used unemployment not still unemployed?
Because they know they have a limited time for benefits, and try to find work before those benefits end. Most succeed.
It would be the same if we put limits on welfare benefits.
I have no problem in helping those who need help (be it thru taxes or charitable giving). My problem is with those on welfare that have no desire to get off of it, and do everything they can to game the system.
My mom was on welfare. She was a single mother with three kids and for a time she was on welfare, and food stamps. After a while, she chose to have a job instead.
I'm sure there are deadbeats and welfare scammers out there too, but it's not all of them.
Now we are getting somewhere.
What do you think the percent of "deadbeats and welfare scammers" are?
How can we get rid of, or at the very least, reduce the numbers of those people that are getting a free ride?
Post a Comment