re: "Republicans and Democrats Agree: End the War on Drugs" (The New York Times, November 7, 2020)
It is not only that the drug war has been a proven failure for many decades, which only the insane would continue repeating expecting different outcomes; it has actively worsened drug harms to society.
If all drugs from marijuana to heroin were decriminalized, better still legalized, for sale and use by adults, there would be immediate reductions in drug-related harms to society, as shown by statistics for Portugal before and after 2000, when it decriminalized personal drug use. Some benefits of legalization: tax is collected on the thriving drug industry, which funds can be used for education and rehabilitation; a fortune is saved in police and legal resources, which can be diverted to actual crimes like murder, rape, theft, fraud and so on; a powerful temptation to mafia gangs and corrupt officials is knocked out; decent people who have harmed none save themselves do not get criminal records for choosing the unpopular drug (and let's not forget: while heroin and crack cocaine beat out alcohol for being most harmful to the user, alcohol is by far the most harmful drug for others and society, from road kills to domestic abuse); and of course, the war on drugs has not reduced drug use or addiction rates, which do not rise sharply after legalization.
More importantly, the war on drugs is profoundly unAmerican: it contradicts absolutely the founding principle that adults have the liberty to pursue their lives as they see fit provided that they not harm others in doing so.
_______________________________
The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The New York Times article.
It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/opinion/sunday/election-marijuana-legalization.html#commentsContainer&permid=110021358:110021358
Also a reply:
ReplyDelete@P. C.
I'm sorry. I can't agree with your radical proposal to decriminalize all acts. Let's consider two examples:
1. Jill is a successful engineer who has just completed a major project. She starts celebrating with her colleagues at an upscale restaurant, where they get through about half a bottle of excellent red wine each, and a good shot of fine old cognac to round out dinner. Their drug use has rendered them decidedly cheery; it's almost certainly destroying a few brain cells, and setting them up for headaches on the morrow. But they have so far harmed only themselves.
2. John is a successful engineer who has just completed a major project. He starts celebrating with his colleagues at a trendy club, where they get through a couple of pills of something, and a good shot of fine cocaine to keep things bopping. Their drug use has rendered them decidedly cheery; it's almost certainly destroying a few brain cells, and setting them up for headaches on the morrow. But they have so far harmed only themselves.
Now, Jill decides to drive home because she's sure she's a "good" drunk.
John, on the other hand, knows he is intoxicated so orders a taxi.
The law should arrest and imprison Jill because she has directly threatened the lives of others, and may well go on to kill them by driving under the influence of her drug of choice.
In contrast, John has neither harmed nor threatened anyone but himself. There can be no justice in arresting him merely for snorting cocaine.
At:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/opinion/sunday/election-marijuana-legalization.html#commentsContainer&permid=110021277:110021440