Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Libertarian Party: 47% of Americans reject capitalism | Main | Ezra Levant talks Shakedown at Fraser Institute's "Behind the Spin" »

Friday, April 10, 2009

Another good drug war article

You've heard it all before from me, so without further ado here's another good article on the drug war from CNN.

And here's an excerpt:

Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.

Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after.

Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.

The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons...

h/t: Steve, who says: "Either you have drugs and violence on the streets, or just drugs. Seems like an obvious choice."

I'll second that.

Posted by Janet Neilson on April 10, 2009 in Marijuana reform | Permalink

Comments

"Either you have drugs and violence on the streets, or just drugs. Seems like an obvious choice."

Well put.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-10 8:47:49 PM


.. or streets without drugs
and all natural violence

Posted by: 419 | 2009-04-10 8:54:04 PM


"Either you have drugs and violence on the streets, or just drugs. Seems like an obvious choice."

Many of the countries I've visited have neither, I think it's because they shoot and jail the drug dealers. There are more heroin junkies in Toronto, twelve time zones away from the "Golden Triangle", than in the actual Golden Triangle where the stuff has been produced for decades, I've been there. That is wholly a function of how the two societies regulate (in Canada's case, promote) heroin usage.

Most countries are much harder on drug crimes than the USA; not coincidentally, they have lower rates of drug abuse and related social ills. Those countries are also now starting to kick our asses economically. The use of the term "drug war" betrays an ignorance of the world outside the anglosphere.

If you couldn't sell decrim during a boom, I'm not sure how you can sell it during after a quarter where GDP dropped 15%.

Incidentally, isn't that more important than decrim? Plenty of economic minds here at the Standard, no comment on an unprecedented drop in GDP? If your staff lacks the education and skillset for economic analysis, Matthew, I'm available!

We cannot compete with China and India as the nation of stoners we have already become. You appear to be OK with Canadians lead the world in marijuana consumption, STDs, and nearly leading in obesity. Some of us question the long term viability of such a society.

I hope GDP drops another 15% and keeps dropping until men and women start acting like men and women and discussing serious adult issues, not the Peter Pan world of decrim, polygamy, "safe" injection sites, and gay marriage.

Posted by: Que | 2009-04-10 11:20:09 PM


Indeed we have heard it all before, saying exactly the same thing as before, in exactly the same words as before. Welcome to the bandwagon, CNN, and congratulations on your remarkable insight: to wit, that criminals are violent. Well, thanks for clearing that up. I don't know how that could have escaped our attention. Lucky you're here to catch us when we stumble.

Oh, if only those crooked, nastybad lawmen would make drugs legal [wring hands, wring hands; anguished expression], there wouldn't be any violence in the drug industry. In fact, if only everything were legal, then there wouldn't be any criminals at all. Thieves, assassins, racketeers, smugglers, drug growers, kidnappers could all have their own trade guilds, either selling their services to anyone off the street as freelancers or else getting jobs at one of the big syndicates. Burglars won't have to operate alone and at night in dangerous conditions, and hit men will have legal recourse if their client stiffs them for their fee. Oh, if only...

Reality check; the people talking like that are imbeciles and malignant narcissists. Whether they like it or not, social mores and morality still play a huge part in making law. Sometimes the right and just path isn't the easy one. There is no easier way for a parent to turn out a juvenile delinquent than to say "yes" to everything they ask. Imagine our society if everyone did that.

There have been more articles about the "drug war" on this blog than any other single topic. I'm beginning to wonder if most libertarians aren't just the next wave of counterculture rejects.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-10 11:31:34 PM


"There have been more articles about the "drug war" on this blog than any other single topic. I'm beginning to wonder if most libertarians aren't just the next wave of counterculture rejects."

I'm beginning to wonder if they aren't a bought and paid for part of Marc Emery's defense team. I hope this website isn't funded by drug money, and isn't really a front operation pretending to be libertarian, because that would be very uncool.

Seriously, Canada's GDP drops 15% in a quarter, and WS's response is to call for decrim? I thought you guys were all economic whizzes? Do you even like economics? Maybe you are too stoned to do economic analysis?

Posted by: Que | 2009-04-11 2:54:46 AM


We cannot compete with China and India as the nation of stoners we have already become. - In fact, part of the reason China was virtually powerless for over a century was due to rampant opium addiction—foisted on it by the West by force of arms, I might add.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-11 8:59:01 AM


"I'm beginning to wonder if most libertarians aren't just the next wave of counterculture rejects." - I'm beginning to wonder if they aren't a bought and paid for part of Marc Emery's defense team. - Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-11 9:01:57 AM


There have been more articles about the "drug war" on this blog than any other single topic. I'm beginning to wonder if most libertarians aren't just the next wave of counterculture rejects.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-10 11:31:34 PM

Of the last 100 Shotgun posts, 3 have been about the drug war or drug policy. A few (I believe 3, but to be conservative let's say up to 5) others have mentioned it as an aside and commenters (mostly you) have zeroed in on only that portion of the post, which could lead me to ask who on this blog is really obsessed with drug policy.

Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-11 9:34:50 AM


Matthew Johnston has admitted he is a, quote "single issue" guy in a recent post, the single issue being decrim. You only lose more credibility denying the obvious.

More than a few commenters have complained that there is too much focus on weed, look no further than how Cust jumped on Keith Martin's nutsac, oblivious to Martin's support for mandatory unionized daycare at a cost of $16 billion per year, among other genius statist plans, just because he is pro-decrim. It's not hard to fill in the blanks as to why that is.

Posted by: Que | 2009-04-11 10:20:06 AM


We do no see any evidence or motiive for the Western Standard to be part of Emerys bought and paid for defence team-

if the WS inner circle had indeed been in Emerys' pay, they would have been very sweet to or ignored the posters who did not buy into the decrim miracle. Thats paid promotion-

the Emery people actually do delete wholesale all comments from YouTube & their own pot magazine forums that fail to lavish praise on the Royal Family of Pot, and/or hiss at the evil prohibitionists & their fundimental wickedness.

The Emery People as you can read for yourself here and elsewhere, routinely attack, with some central co ordination energy, all published views that do not echo their pro pot, pro intoxico maximus stance in the popular press.

Se this all for yourself that here on the WS, the editorial staff do host and entertain the dreaded prohibitionist viewpoint and, on occasion, chastise same for unspecified thought crimes.
( Spelling offenses, drooling spittle , etc )

No Emery paid flunkeys would _ever tolerate, even for a moment, prohibitionist counter punches to their flagship " HMS Wipehead " shipwreck of a cause. Especially as they are going down in the whirlpool of their own making

This is your brain on drugs-
this is your counter culture
- going down the toilet

Posted by: 419 | 2009-04-11 11:10:20 AM


Most of the people who post articles on this blog are actually students who have yet to start their careers and have a true appreciation for what it takes to build a competitive, prosperous and successful society.

I'm only 28, but I have a business that employs 6 people. Until you understand what it takes to acquire and develop intelligent employees, understand their needs and concerns as well as developing long term customers and helping them grow and maintain their viability, you cannot possibly understand how important it is to have a healthy and prosperous populace.

To let that go by legalizing drugs and encouraging somnolence, laziness, dependency and the destruction of human brain functioning and intellectual capacity is utterly stupid.

You people are planting and nurturung the seeds of our own destruction with what you are doing. The slack-assed "tolerant" atitudes towards dope in Vancouver are now translating into murder, mayhem and fear.

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-04-11 11:14:56 AM


Either Vancouver gets smart FAST
and cleans their city up
in time for the Olympics-
or they will fail
at plucking that economic plum
and expose their civic incompetence
for the whole world to see.

What's it gonna be?
decisive victory over chemically induced stupidity
or more of this Zombie Wipehead dance party ?

Posted by: 419 | 2009-04-11 11:34:15 AM


You don't need any chemicals to induce YOUR stupidy 419. I guess to some it just comes naturally.

Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-04-11 12:58:09 PM


419, what are you expecting from a city that has twice in three elections voted for a party that thinks the most important civic issue is buying new "Nuclear Weapons Free Zone" signs?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-11 12:58:50 PM


Which is not the same as saying that drug policy is not the most popular single topic of discussion, Janet. If you'd done the research you claim to have, it would have been easy to take that information which you already had and create a top five and list them in order, providing ironclad proof. The fact that you haven't done this leaves your point unproven and a whiff of dishonesty.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. So much has to do with asking the right question and how you ask it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-11 1:04:26 PM


You don't need any chemicals to induce YOUR stupidy 419. I guess to some it just comes naturally. - In contrast to your perpetual adolescence, Doc, which is likely 100% chemical-generated.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-11 1:05:27 PM


"Which is not the same as saying that drug policy is not the most popular single topic of discussion, Janet. If you'd done the research you claim to have, it would have been easy to take that information which you already had and create a top five and list them in order, providing ironclad proof."-some alcohol druggie

And why does this topic have so many responses compared to the others? I bet the top 2 posters in every drug policy thread are you and your mentally challenged friend 419. You come in and attack people who are promoting sensible drug policy and then people reply in defence of themselves and their ideas. If there is more discussion on drug threads, you are part of the reason for that. So far out of like 16 comments in this thread 8 of them are from you and your wipehead friend 419.

Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-04-11 1:21:42 PM


And why does this topic have so many responses compared to the others? I bet the top 2 posters in every drug policy thread are you and your mentally challenged friend 419.

People keep tossing crap; I keep flushing it. Someone's got to do it, lest the place stink up. Of course, your olfactory lobes are probably pretty much shot, aren't they?

You come in and attack people who are promoting sensible drug policy and then people reply in defence of themselves and their ideas.

Telling people why they're wrong is not attacking them. Attacking is more your style, with your "suck off, fuck off, eat me" approach to debate.

If there is more discussion on drug threads, you are part of the reason for that.

As are you; so your point is...? Mine was that even threads that had nothing to do with drug policy tend to move toward that subject, and not because of anything I say. A trend observed by others besides myself, despite the righteous umbrage taken by Miss Doorslam.

So far out of like 16 comments in this thread 8 of them are from you and your wipehead friend 419.

And even just one of them contains a greater contribution to the debate than you've made since you arrived on the Shotgun. A gram of rational argument is worth ten trainloads of puke.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-11 3:23:00 PM


P.S. A good number of my total posts are tack-ons like this one. I forgot to mention that out of all the points I raised, Miss Doorslam chose instead to deny a trend that several people have remarked on. How very like her to stir the pot and watch the whirls and eddies without getting more than a toe wet herself.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-11 3:25:49 PM


Ping Pong anyone ?

Posted by: 419 | 2009-04-11 3:35:10 PM


Ping Pong, skeet shooting,knife throwing, billiards, skateboarding, any test of motor function, balance or sobriety you want. You choose. Cannabis users will pass it with flying clolors while you drunks fall all over yourself and act like assholes.

Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-04-11 7:42:41 PM


oops I made a typo, you better jump on that little error right away.

Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-04-11 7:44:57 PM


Greenthumb.

1. Get off the dope.

2. Get your health back.

3. Take some courses.

4. Get a better job.

Result:

Happier wife. Happier children. Better friends. Happier Life. Happier YOU!

You are unhappy Greenthumb. Each of your posts reeks of an unfulfilled and frustrating life.

Epsi

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-04-11 9:41:03 PM


You couldn't be more wrong epsilon. I am a very happy father of three, with a very happy wife, a great job and a large 5 bedroom house on a large rural property. We are actually quite wealthy. I own several rental properties as well as a good paying job with benefits. My wife is in health care management and makes 65 grand a year plus an extra 1600 every two weeks she makes from her contract work. We don't need any more money, and money doesn't buy happiness. I could quit my job tommorrow if I wanted to and still make enough from my business interests alone.

I have plenty of post secondary education.
My kids are all very happy and have been on the honour roll every year since they started school.

I have lots of friends, and I don't think I could ask for better ones. My friends are open minded fun people, and in my opinion a lot better company than most of the prohibitionist minded people I meet. Definitely better company than drinkers I know

Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-04-11 10:09:41 PM


Cannabis users will pass it with flying colors while you drunks fall all over yourself and act like assholes. - Fine, Doc. You smoke twelve joints; I'll drink six highballs, and then we'll go skeet shooting. On separate ranges, of course.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-11 10:31:34 PM


You don't sound very happy, Doc. And not one of those claims is verifiable. And I'd be most interested to know what kind of work you can get if your employer knows you're a regular drug user. To say nothing of how much demand there is for "health care management" in a rural area where the nearest town has a population of only 2500.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-11 10:34:43 PM


Dr Greenthumb seems to have morphed into Bud Oracle -- all resume and no argument.

Posted by: 419 | 2009-04-12 9:14:58 AM


If you are for the War on (Some) Drugs, you are one of three things:
1. Uninformed,
2. Just plain stupid, or
3. A politician (the all of the above answer).

Posted by: Dan Givens | 2009-04-14 11:52:10 AM


Opinions are like assholes--everybody has one and half the time they're full of shit. Get over yourself, Dan. I've yet to meet a marijuana advocate who wasn't an emotional juvenile, and you're no exception.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-06 7:58:13 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.