My generalized rage against the excesses of the drug war often keep me from commenting about it rationally. This is the best piece I've read on the subject in ages, and gets closer to my true feelings about the nature of addiction:
Just as someone needs to tell the drug warriors that not all illicit drugs are equally dangerous, someone needs to tell the extreme libertarians that not all illicit drugs are equally safe. Some illegal drugs are actually quite nasty. And anything that makes it harder for policy-makers and drug users to accurately distinguish degrees of risk makes the drug abuse problem worse.
The libertarians may have the advantage of ideological consistency. But a blind adherence to such consistency weakens their own case.
Of course, it's difficult to objectively and clinically test the relative harm and danger of illegal drugs - since doing so requires some level of cooperation from law enforcement, and thus the policing agenda gets superimposed on the scientific model. But common sense, anecdotal evidence suggests that meth is several leaps of danger beyond marijuana. And given an environment where both are illegal, meth is far easier to produce because it's easier to hide. One could very easily grow a field of hemp in Iowa's rich soil IF it were legal, but grow lights and hiding places are almost as complex as a meth recipe.
This goes back to my pet theory why alcohol is the sanctioned drug: it's big and bulky and liquid, and takes time and space to produce especially if you want a quality product, aged in an oak barrel or wine cellar. Thus it's a better source of government revenue, easier to regulate and tax.
In any case, Kleiman seems to have a very practical approach that should be taken more seriously.
Politics
No comments:
Post a Comment