Skip to main content

A Wilmington Grandfather Bottom Lines the Drug War

I am never surprised that consistent polling data demonstrates some of the largest support for ending prohibition, especially of cannabis, resides in senior citizens, up to the 70+% range in some age categories. Having lived through the last half century as adults, they know the real deal, and possess wisdom from which we can always learn.

They have watched for decades how the hysterical drum-beating of the prohibitionists is completely divorced from the reality of actual drug usage across the vast population. Our more senior citizens can see how absurd is prohibitionist hyperbole and fear-mongering, roughly equivalent to peddling the premise that every person who drinks is a dangerous alcoholic drunk-driving wife-beating predator needing long-term incarceration, or similarly ridiculous propaganda.

Wilmington grandfather, Jim Chaikin, weighs in with some common sense in a letter to the editor of the News-Journal :

It’s about time the U.S. legalized certain drugs

My grandchildren often say to me, “Grandpop, guess what?” and then proceed to bring me up to date on one thing or another.

Well folks, guess what? Drugs are going to be legalized, and soon.

It will happen like this: The out-of-control drug war is killing the tourism business in Mexico. That will hurt Mexico where it hurts – in the pocketbook. The president of Mexico will say “enough – time to legalize drugs, get rid of the thugs and make Mexico a nice, safe place to visit again” and we will follow suit.

It’s about time.

Jim Chaikin, Wilmington

Comments

Anonymous said…
Its time to legalize marijuana! I saw a study citing the actual growing of marijuana would help with repair of the ozone layer. These drug wars are costing trillions, do not work and should be abolished!

Another way to keep people in the revolving prison industrial complex.

Crack cocaine, heroin, and other killer drugs are a different story. We need to pass the Delaware Crime and Rehabilation
Act, Senator Margaret Rose Henry will be sponsoring this legislative session. Put drug addicts into treatment programs not jail.
Anonymous said…
I don't know how many years of failure have to pass before we really do change our criminalization of drugs policy! Maybe, with the serious drug wars right now in Mexico, and with the high cost of incarceration in the "prison industrial comples", maybe now is the time for change to actually happen.

The demand side fueling the mexican drug wars is right here in our country. It is our responsibility to address this problem differently, yes, with decriminalization and with treatment programs.

Perry Hood
Anonymous said…
I hope all the local reefer is not coming from Mexico....Mexican Dirt weed is the worst.

I thought that weed was California's #1 cash crop and from the color of the bud I see it looks more like 'home grown' (greenish) than that old brown dirt weed. Not to mention you can't get high on the sh*t.

Oh, for a little Jamaican, Columbian, Hawiian.........
Anonymous said…
Wrote a research paper on this. I have no problem with penalizing trafficking (especially since that's where the big issues seem to come up). That said, the federal government should not be in the business of protecting people from themselves.
Tyler Nixon said…
What are "traffickers" but a boogey man version of commodities market brokers?

You can't tell people you are not protecting them from themselves when you use public resources to deny them access to substances they wish to obtain, in essence : refined agricultural products for personal use for whatever reason.

The unintended consequences of going after "trafficking" do not simply exist in a vaccum. They are reflected adversely in an exponent of ways in which responsible otherwise-law-abiding people must undertake bizarre, covert, often-illicit measures to obtain the commodity, though none involves any harm to any other person. Really, it is a system that does them harm.

The worst of these distortions, from driving a vast market underground, are the result of the risk premium that makes the whole black market tick, drives it every step of the way, and which ends on the doorstep of every end consumer.

The drug war is essentially a massive "trafficking" tax which does little or nothing to actually abate the flow, while literally empowering the most risk-taking and lawless of entrepreneurs in this market. These statutorily-created black marketeers operate by massively-inflated yet nearly-monopolistic pricing, forcing the worst of the end buyers or users to resort to real crimes, like robbery and burglary and theft, to afford the drug war tax on their product of choice. The massive profit motive eventually turns it into blood money, at some point or another.

So, Mat, there is no neat cleave between freedom of choice and the freedom of those who operate the market that makes that freedom a reality.

Calling them "traffickers" or any other loaded boogey man name does not alter that we have made the traffickers the evil they are by prohibition laws.

Otherwise they may as well be pharmaceutical salesman or grain merchants or a commodities transport service or any of the other actual functional ends they serve in this particular market.

There has to be wholesale change for reform to work. No half measures and disparate conflicted segmentation and treatment of the market's elements will produce beneficial or stable outcomes.

You can't have a free market for consumers with a criminalized market for producers/brokers and expect anything but perverse consequences, especially when it involves such easily-produced, ubiquitous and fungible commodities.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...