The war against drugs was lost before we begin, why our governor refuses to admit this fact? last two years of drug violence in Mexico has become a staple of daily news. Some of the violence pits the drug cartels against each other, some involving clashes between police and traffickers.
Recent estimates suggest thousands of people lost their lives in the war on drugs. "
The U.S. and Mexican responses to violence have been predictable: more troops and police, border controls and greater extended the application of any kind. Climbing is a wrong answer, however, drug prohibition is the cause of violence.
Prohibition begets violence, as it leads the market for the drug underground. This means that buyers and sellers can not resolve their disputes with litigation, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.
Violence is common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after.
The violence is the norm on illicit markets in the game but not legally. Violence is routine where prostitution is prohibited, but not when it is allowed. The violence is the result of policies that create black markets, and not from the characteristics of the property or activity in question.
The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is good policy for a host of other reasons.
Prohibition of drugs is corrupting politicians and law enforcement through police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in a position to threaten the profits of illicit trade. Therefore, corruption, threats and kidnappings are common for industries prohibited, but rare elsewhere. Mexico's recent history illustrates this dramatically.
Prohibition undermines protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, because none of the parties to a drug deal has an incentive to report the activity to the police. Thus, the application requires disruptive tactics such as warrantless searches or purchases of infiltration. The nature of this crime without a victim called the police also encouraged to engage in racial profiling.
Do not miss
* Violence sparks talk of decriminalizing drug
* Miron: owners of bailing is a mistake
* In Depth: Comments
Prohibition has disastrous consequences for national security. By eliminating coca plants in Colombia or poppy fields in Afghanistan, the ban is a source of resentment of the United States. In rewarding those who produce and supply drugs, the prohibition supports terrorists who sell protection to drug traffickers.
Prohibition undermines public health. Patients suffering from cancer, glaucoma and the other conditions can not use marijuana in accordance with the laws of most states or the federal government despite abundant evidence of its effectiveness. Terminally ill patients can not always get adequate pain medication because doctors may fear prosecution by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Drug users face restrictions on clean needles that are sharing contaminated needles and the spread of HIV, hepatitis and other diseases transmissible by blood.
The prohibition of racial non-compliance with the law because, despite the draconian penalties and the widespread application, many people continue to violate the ban. This means that those who break the law, and those who did not learn that obeying laws is for suckers.
Prohibition is a drain on public funds. The federal, provincial and local spending about 44 billion U.S. dollars per year to enforce drug prohibition. These same governments waive about 33 billion U.S. dollars annually in tax revenues they could collect from legalizing drugs, assuming that these were charged at rates similar to those of alcohol and tobacco. Under the ban, these revenues accrue to traders that profits have increased.
The political right, therefore, is to legalize drugs while using the rules and.
Posted on February 25, 2010.
