tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post2628805299349191296..comments2024-03-26T15:19:23.091-07:00Comments on false dichotomy by charles davis: Legalize itCharles Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06005070529766546097noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-15866339760332892502009-03-27T07:36:00.000-07:002009-03-27T07:36:00.000-07:00Darren, With billions of dollars per year spent on...Darren, <BR/><BR/>With billions of dollars per year spent on the so-called war on drugs -- combined with the loss of tax revenue that could be realized under legalization and the costs incurred building new prisons to house drug offenders -- the issue of prohibition is most certainly one of economics. The California government, for example, is facing massive budget deficits but appears unable to cut a clear waste of resources – it's massive prison population of nonviolent drug offenders – because of the power of the state's prison guard union. In other words, the state is sacrificing its economic well-being to maintain a destructive social policy.<BR/><BR/>While I would prefer to argue less on utilitarian grounds than on philosophic -- I'm more incensed that the government deems itself more capable of regulating what I put into my body than I am -– the issue of economics (that is, the tremendous drain of resources that is the drug war) is definitely at play here. As for health care: how many people die every year from preventable drug overdoses because people are afraid to go to the hospital for fear of arrest? How many people have contracted AIDS or Hepatitis from exchanging dirty needles thanks to our government's enlightened ban on needle-exchange programs?<BR/><BR/>Also, if people are going to the black market to purchase pot because they don't want to pay taxes, then that means the taxes are too high. FDR, remember, did not outright ban marijuana (that was thought unconstitutional in such innocent times), but imposed major new taxes on it, creating a situation of de facto prohibition. If policymakers avoided onerous taxes while legalizing pot, it would cost substantially less than it does now, and users would not have to fear 1) arrest 2) getting ripped off and 3) having no legal recourse in the event of #2.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I know you're no ardent prohibitionist, but Obama's smirking dismissal of the idea of legalization was offensive to me, particularly since he's endorsed the same militarized approach to the drug war -– and blocked the term “harm reduction” from being included in a recent UN document on drug policy -– that's destined to lead to the same results: a lot of wasted money and lives.Charles Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005070529766546097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339045.post-88166199598252395412009-03-27T05:57:00.000-07:002009-03-27T05:57:00.000-07:00Hi. I responded to your post on my blog. I am not ...Hi. I responded to your post on my blog. I am not a "war on drugs" person, and I passionately oppose the massive incarceration policies in this country. The US has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world - so much for land of the "free." <BR/><BR/>This, however, does not excuse liberal arguments in support of decriminalization that rest on grounds outside of the merits of the drug itself. I agree that a lot of the debate on this subject is riddled in anti-drug rhetoric, rather than a sound discussion of science. But proponents of decriminalization often advance "thin" arguments as well, pointing to healthcare and (now) economics, rather than simply discussing factors related to pot itself (harm or danger relative to other drugs, like alcohol, etc.).Darren Lenard Hutchinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303769200481824426noreply@blogger.com