POLITICAL: How to stop the drug wars?


Failed states and failed policies
How to stop the drug wars
Mar 5th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution

*** begin quote ***

A calculated gamble, or another century of failure?
This newspaper first argued for legalisation 20 years ago (see article). Reviewing the evidence again (see article), prohibition seems even more harmful, especially for the poor and weak of the world. Legalisation would not drive gangsters completely out of drugs; as with alcohol and cigarettes, there would be taxes to avoid and rules to subvert. Nor would it automatically cure failed states like Afghanistan. Our solution is a messy one; but a century of manifest failure argues for trying it.
*** end quote ***

If I was President O, after releasing my birth certificate, I’d declare that we had “won” the drug war. Consistent with other victories, I’d:
(1) pardon all non-violent drug offenders;
(2) direct all federal prosecutors to stop prosecuting the same;
(3) direct the Congress that they would be in session until they pass a decriminalization of all drug prohibition (the President can summon Congress back into session!);
(4) direct the DEA, FDA, and all federal agencies that they are no out of the “prohibition business”; and
(5) convene WalMart and the major drug companies to a conference at the White House and ask them how they are going to supply the nation with it’s previously illegal drugs.
(Expecting that the drug gangs will now have a FORMIDABLE competitor. Hard to run a gang when WalMart drives your “product’s” price to that of aspirin! And, makes it USP pure.)
Like this is EVER going to happen!
# # # # #

INTERESTING: The time-honored and unchanging free-market principles needed


NRO BLOG ROW – THE CORNER – Wednesday, March 11, 2009

*** begin quote ***

Accordingly, conservatism will return to prominence when it uses time-honored and unchanging free-market principles to address new problems, and when it finds advocates who both are adept at communication with non-traditional audiences (e.g., why it is in the interest of African-Americans to be skeptical of abortion on demand, why Hispanic small-business people need to be wary of intrusive regulations, why Asian-Americans should fear affirmative-action-driven de facto racial quotas at the University of California, why talented teachers should not have to join bureaucratic, ossified unions, why today’s young people should not have to pay off Obama’s annual $1.7 trillion deficits, etc.) and believe in their message’s resonance, without trimming[?] for the applause of the moment.

*** end quote ***

As “conservatism” seeks to return us to the “classical liberalism” of the First American Revolution, a little L libertarian like myself can agree that it’s a good first step.

Unfortunately, for as smart as I feel the DOWGs were, and they were far smarter than I, and more courageous as well, I don’t think we can rewind the clock.

We have to take those “classically liberal” principles and move forward applying them to today’s problems.

Just as the King was rightly opposed as tyrannical, so to must we oppose the new “king” — the overpower all-encompassing gooferment.

Empowering the individual to make their own choices and bear the consequences of bad choices.

So, we have to have miniscule government. Close to the people. With it’s only mission being to protect the rights of individuals.


# # # # #