Thursday, March 12, 2009

Nah, we'll stick with the most bad policy, thank you.

The Economist takes a stand:

''Next week ministers from around the world gather in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. Like first-world-war generals, many will claim that all that is needed is more of the same. In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.''

I like the use of the term ''least bad''; that pretty much captures it. It's not that legalizing drugs would be good. It's that using the money spent by states to wage a semi-war against their own citizens- particularly those ones actually suffering from addiction- to educate about drugs and treat addicts for addiction would be less bad. It would also answer better the question of ''public health'', which has always been the pretense for the creeping authoritarian militarism of the ''war on drugs''. However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for ''legalization'' to get past the police lobbies and those of our fellow bed-wetters who can't sleep at night without the government watching over them.

2 comments:

The Pagan Temple said...

I don't know about police lobbies, but I would almost be willing to bet that most rank-and-file cops would be fine with legalizing marijuana. That would be one less headache for them to have to waste their time on.

Rufus said...

Maybe some cops will stop by and comment. I'm still under the impression that many of them fill their monthly quotas with easy drug busts and pulling over people who are driving three miles over the speed limit. I would imagine though that none of them really believe the ridiculous propaganda about marijuana.