End Drug Prohibition, You Fools
Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy is looking at the militarization of the police. In the discussion there are a number of suggestions for changing this or mitigating its dire effects. Such as the recent killing of a 92 year old woman who shot at police thinking they were home invaders. Different weapons, different policies.
Naturally I had some thoughts:
Milton Friedman estimated that drug prohibitiion kills 2,000 innocents a year (innocent bystanders, stray bullets, botched raids, etc.)
It is not a bug, it is a feature.
Anybody look at the stats for the decline in criminal violence once alcohol prohibition ended?
We subsidize violence on all sides of this equation and then we complain there is too much violence. Or try to figure out what policy or weapons system will mitigate the disaster. Tinkering at the margins.
Give me a break.
Let me make it simple for those too smart by half. Reduce the violence police have to deal with and police will become less violent. Rocket science, no?
End drug prohibition, you fools.
Posts
5 comments:
I wish the Drugs-of-Choice problem were that simple, I truly do!
Violence might well go down vis-a-vis police, who no longer have to enforce laws re drogs; and from rival gangs who, faced with legal convenient outlets for clean, 'safe' recreational drogs, would be deprived of their market and hence would stop blasting away at rivals.
But the follow-on to that argument includes (possibly more than now) people stumbling around under-the-influence; operating equipment UTI; and all kinds of other DANGEROUS endeavors, Under The Influence...
Still, it might be worth the cost to break this rising cycle of violence AND the massive cash/work/theft that goes into supporting those habits...
Ending alcohol prohibition did not end our problems with alcohol.
It did end our problem with criminal alcohol suppliers.
BTW prohibition doesn't mean there are no stoners driving around. Ask yourself - did alcohol prohibitioin keep drunk drivers off the street?
It always amazes me that people think prohibition does something useful (keeps stoners from driving) when obviously it doesn't.
Reinforicing the proposition that the mere mention of drugs clouds the brain.
=========================
As to crime - you are right about that. Some police and mayors say drug related crime accounts for 85% of the crime in their jurisdictions.
An 85% reduction in crime would fund a lot of rehab.
Ending prohibition of either alcohol or drugs would not end of the problems of brutal police, corrupt politicians & their laws. In fact the thugs who enforced alcohol prohibition were not dismissed to get "a real job" after prohibition laws were repealed. They just shifted the thugs over to "drugs, marijiana,..etc". The targeted users at the time were musicians, blacks & other underclass undesirables. I would be more favorably inclined re. anti-prohibitionist idealists if they would present solutions to the "brutal thug" unemployment problem. Corrupt potiticos aren't gonna fire 'em & they gotta have somethin' to do.... ;)
anon.,
I don't believe that most problems can be reduced in magnitude. Few can be eliminated.
After alcohol where did the violent thugs go? Most of them got regular jobs. As Meyer Lansky pointed out: Crime pays, but not very well. As the wages for crime decline, not even "putting one over on the man" is not enough of an attraction.
AS you point out what we have to worry about is some new make work program (prohibition).
Let me try again and see if I can get it to make more sense:
I do believe that most problems can be reduced in magnitude. Few can be eliminated.
After alcohol where did the violent thugs go? Most of them got regular jobs. As Meyer Lansky pointed out: Crime pays, but not very well. As the wages for crime decline, not even "putting one over on the man" is enough of an attraction.
AS you point out what we have to worry about is some new make work program (prohibition).
Post a Comment