Not literally. It's not quite the weekend, after all. But thoughts of sweet bud are on my mind because they've been in the news lately. Most notably, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking during a visit to Mexico, professed to sympathize with the host country's increasingly bloody fighting between its well-armed drug cartels and often overmatched police and military forces. Clinton even sensibly pointed out that the U.S. deserved a significant chunk of the blame for the problem, what with its millions of drug users being the primary market for goods grown and/or shipped by Mexican drug gangs, and said both countries needed to take bolder steps to combat the problem.
Just what she thinks those steps should be is unclear. Based on reports so far, the new vision consists of $80 million for more helicopters to crack down on illegal cross-border drug and gun shipments. In other words, $80 million worth of the same kind of initiatives that have failed the drug warriors for 40 years.
But wait! Clinton's working for a revolutionary new president who has himself admitted to trying drugs in his youth. Barack Obama, had he been caught back in his "experimenting with blow" days, might still be languishing in jail. Instead, he did what most drug users do - he tried the stuff, grew out of it and moved on to bigger and better things. He's a living example of how the misguided policies of the American drug war have greater potential to harm than to help. He's young enough and smart enough to know this, so surely he must see the rationale for legalization. Right?
Er, not so much. At his virtual town hall meeting this week, Obama ducked for cover in the face of drug legalization questions, saying that he didn't see it as an effective way to grow the American economy (never mind all the needless deaths and the billion-dollar criminal industry that prohibition creates).
It's pointless, but I'll add my stream to that of countless other commentators pissing into the wind on the legalization issue. The argument's the same as it's ever been, but really, has there ever been a time when the drug legalization - or, at least, pot legalization - argument has ever been more logical on so many fronts?
Make the stuff legal and you:
a) Wipe out, or cripple, the cartels who make billions of dollars by growing, trafficking and selling the stuff. They only get rich because they're the only supply source.
b) Cut down on violent crime. This is related to point a). While murder is obviously a moral offence, it's also carried out based on a cost-benefit analysis. Under prohibition, the amount of money drug traffickers stand to make means it's worthwhile to risk killing or dying.
c) Reduce the prison population. Prisons are overcrowded, and too many of them are filled with drug users who had the misfortune to be caught committing crimes as simple as possession. Many of these folks, were they not incarcerated, might be able to become (or return to being) contributing members of society. Like Barack Obama.
d) Boost the economy. Obama's denial aside, it's hard to see how legalized pot wouldn't be an economic boon. The government could control production and sales itself. Or, more stimulatively, it could allow private enterprise to do so while taking its own cut by heavily taxing pot, a la tobacco. More jobs and a great way to increase tax revenue in a way that doesn't pull from the pockets of good, honest, straight-and-narrow types. Plus, pot legalization would presumably also clear the way for hemp, a resilient, versatile fibre that could provide more options for more farmers.
All of these points have been made before, ad nauseum. But I'm not aware of any argument that has successfully countered this one, beyond the usual "what message does it send" garbage. Meanwhile, North American governments continue to send the message that they prefer to remain willfully ignorant about the simple solution to a terrible, ongoing problem.
Change is hard to believe in when there's no change at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment