Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Three part series on legalization at Culture 11 A nice series. Could use some commenting. War on Drugs: The Collateral Damage Prohibition militarizes police, enriches our enemies, undermines our laws, and condemns our sick to suffering. By Radley Balko The usual excellence from Radley. War on Drugs: The Price Tag: America can't afford marijuana prohibition [^] it's a matter of dollars and sense. By Anita Bartholomew Lots of good stuff about LEAP and the costs of prohibition. Do we really want to keep spending insane amounts of our dwindling government funds on tracking down, arresting and imprisoning the hundreds of thousands of hapless Harolds and Kumars who then can no longer contribute to our faltering economy by overeating at White Castle? Keep Drugs Illegal!: Legalization won't end the violence, but it will fry plenty of brains. By David Freddoso. Really incoherent attempt to say that we won't gain anything through legalization because the criminals will still move to other crime. Yes, he went there. (See Stupid Argument #3) 11:18:23 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Pleading for leaders to magically do something they dare not say This editorial in the El Paso Times has been bugging me all day (ezrydn brought it up in comments as well). I'm not sure if it's sad and pathetic, or sad with hidden code. First, the editorial establishes that supply side prohibition doesn't work We've already committed to send Mexico more than $1 billion in money and technology to fight the drug cartels. Mexico has sent its army into battle against these military-style gangs that now control entire cities, including Juarez. The money and technology aren't working and the army is not strong enough to take back control of cities. [...] Calderon has made fighting the cartels his chief initiative as president of Mexico. But his army has only pushed cartels around from one haven to another. And the editorial shows that demand side prohibition efforts don't work either. On our side, we've been fighting to keep our children and adults off illegal drugs since President Nixon officially declared the "war on drugs" in the 1970s. "Just say no" is a common phrase we use to educate against illegal drug use. So what is the editorial suggesting? If supply side and demand side don't work, what alternatives are there? Where should we look? Apparently, we need to look to the father-figures -- Obama and Calderon -- who, between the two of them, can win the war through the sheer power of their offices. What's left to see, however, is just how far these two powerful heads of state are willing to go. [...] How much do the two presidents want to end illegal drugs, the existence of the powerful drug cartels and the multitude of gangland-style killings that have the good people of Mexico hiding in fear and many people in the U.S. empowering the cartels by using their products? How much? And how far are they willing to go to stop it? What does this mean? Is the editorial staff that completely whipped and despondent that all they can do is call for some deus ex machina to appear in the sky and win the drug war? Or is this some kind of code? What is meant by the question "how far are they willing to go..."? 10:49:10 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

El Paso council achievement The resolution ultimately failed, but the discussion continues and the seed is planted. Clarence Page: O'Rourke pushed things further by adding 12 words: "supporting an honest, open, national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics." The council passed it unanimously. Yet even a bid to talk about drug legalization was too much for Mayor John Cook. He vetoed the bill, at least partly out of concern that Washington might not take the measure seriously with the drug legalization line in it. Nevertheless, the controversy brought what has been rare American media attention to Mexico's crisis by turning it into radio and cable TV talk fodder. That's a start. [..] When you step back and take a broad look at Mexico's growing carnage, it's easy to see why El Paso's city leaders think legalization doesn't look so bad. Mexico's drug problem is not the drugs. It is the illegality of the drugs. Legalization is not the perfect solution. But treating currently illegal drugs in the way we treat liquor and other legal addictive substances would provide regulation, tax revenue and funds for rehabilitation programs. Most satisfying, it would wipe a lot of smiles off the current drug lords' faces. This is why the prohibitionists don't want even an open honest national dialogue about legalization. They're afraid that when that happens, their precious drug war is doomed. And it's getting harder and harder to keep that discussion under lock and key. It's escaping and will be heard. We also saw Mayor Cook's dismissal of legalizers as "potheads" fail miserably. The notion, promoted heavily for decades by prohibitionists, that those who advocate for drug policy reform are nothing but whacked out potheads wanting easy drugs simply won't fly anymore. The stereotype was that a prohibitionist would give a discussion about the dangers of drugs and a pothead would respond "Uh, I disagree, man. I mean, herb is, you know. 420." Our side is supposed to be lazy and incoherent, clearly not the case if you look at change.gov, or change.org or any internet political discussion that rubs up against drug policy. Contrast the stereotype above, for example, with the recent actuality in the El Paso discussions. Our side was coherent, well prepared - armed with facts and studies in economics, foreign policy, health, crime, etc. - while the prohibitionists stuck to the same fully debunked nonsense. We had reason and they had the equivalent of "Oh yeah? Well, you're a jew!" That open honest national dialogue is going to happen one way or another, because the prohibitionists have nothing of value to stop it. Eventually, the politicians will get on board or get left behind. 9:22:42 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []