Opening a barrel of Snakes

[large]

Here we go again . . A discussion about “Legalizing Drugs” . .

Currently, Mexico is having a dearth of problems, most of which, according to the Administration, the “Drive By Media” (Although I don’t often agree with Rush, I love the term) and a ton of pundits. America is being blamed for the Cartel Wars in Mexico which has migrated (as we knew it would) across the border and now has the citizens of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and to a lesser degree, California in fear and apoplexy, of kidnapping and gunfights in the streets . .

Over half of the talking heads and pundits are wringing their hands to the point of injuring themselves over a problem that could be seen coming 20 years ago like the light on an approaching train . . And every one of them, as well as all of the Politicians have an answer, although the Politician’s answers vary as they go from one ethnic neighborhood to another . .

And . . the answers or solutions are as many as there are pundits . . But, in the last year or less, I’ve noted a number of influential writers and higher profile pundits advocating “Legalization” of drugs . .

Now, in most cases, they aren’t exactly clear as to which drug (so to speak, because to most Marijuana isn’t considered a Drug, but an “Illegal or Illicit Substance”, but to keep the word count down, we’ll include it in the “drug” category . .

Now, my opinion . . First, if you are going to legalize Drug Use, you must legalize Drug Sale. That, of course, would bring State and Federal regulation into the picture, and of course, Taxation of the substances . . Initially to pay for the “Regulation” and then progressively, for every other ill and social program even remotely linked to the use of any or all of those regulated (and legalized) drugs . . and somewhere in that scheme is a “Tipping Point” where it would again become profitable to engage in the sale of “untaxed”, therefore Illegal, Drugs . .

I bring that into the discussion, because, in the Eastern States, is a very big (and lucrative) Black Market dealing in untaxed Cigarettes. They are bought in the South and carried up I-95 to New Jersey and other states where taxes on cigarettes double the price of a pack or carton of smokes . . Legislative Greed can create problems.

But I digress . . IF . . you legalize ONE Illegal or illicit Substance, YOU MUST LEGALIZE THEM ALL! And you must maintain a vigilant watch for new drugs and substances that become the “Drug d’jour” . . And according to current information, that seems to occur about every decade with a new, even more insidious substance . . Pure Mexican Meth being the latest . . or at least the biggest, currently . .

And after legalizing this stuff, you must figure out how to deal with all those chronic users. This becomes the “Cost to Society” because few Substance Abusers are productive, and some of the substances make the users paranoid and schitzophrenic which, usually is manifested in violence . .

Sowhaddyathink?

[large]

Debate, perhaps?

From Tomas P.M. Barnett:

The best anti-drug legalization argument I've yet encountered

OPINION: "Drug Legalization Isn't the Answer: Countries that have experimented with a permissive approach have always turned back," by John P. Walters, Wall Street Journal, 6 March 2009.
First, the barrage of favorable stats:

since 01 the # of young using illegals drops by 900k to 2.7m
use among HS seniors cut nearly in half since peak years 1978 and 1979 (I was 1980), down to a mere 23% in 08
adult and juve drug courts are now common in most states (more than 2k) and these push low-level offenders toward treatment
just under 4% of workers tested positive in 07, down from 14% in 1988.
Author says 10m out of 100m drinkers in America abuse, whereas drug users number in the range of 19m, but he predicts (out of where, I have no idea) a future of 50m users if legalized.

The harder, better sell at the end: (quoted from the article, find it here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123630239109047197.html)

We have seen dramatic proof that institutions of law and democracy can prevail over narco-terrorists. Colombia has attacked drug production and the violent groups that profited from it. In the process, it transformed its national security and made its streets safer. What nation in South America--or anywhere--has reduced violence and human rights abuses more than Colombia since 2002? Could President Alvaro Uribe have done this by surrendering to the drug trade?
Today there is terrible violence in Mexico. Those who carry out attacks do so with the intention of making us stop resisting them. But what the narco-terrorists want is power, not control of the drug trade. These terrorists are growing more violent because over the past three to four years the money that criminal organizations get from trafficking meth and cocaine has dropped sharply--perhaps by 50% or more. To bankroll their activities, they are now kidnapping, extorting and grabbing power. The drug trade is a tool, not the cause of these violent criminal groups.
Rather bullish view, which makes the argument that violent drug groups will always seek/require some venue of money-making, so denying them the drug trade (which he argues is being controlled) is not a way to make them go away per se. In effect, he's arguing that the force of our suppression efforts is creating more sideways friction--i.e., moves to adjacent (more traditional) markets for criminal groups.(end)

Curious what people make of this. On first read, I was impressed. But on second read, less so.