XPost: uk.legal, uk.politics.drugs
From: pxhxz@cadence.com
In article <49D7162E.A976327F@size436464778fitter.com> johannes
johs@size436464778fitter.com> writes:
>M_P wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 12:05 pm, Dr John Watson
>> wrote:
>> > "There is little evidence that controls can reduce total global production
>> > ... (or) for trafficking. Production and trafficking controls only
>> > redistributed activities. Enforcement against local markets failed in most
>> > countries."
>> The prohibitionists' answer will be that we just need to do more of
>> what's not working. What's the definition of insanity, again?
>'Not working' doesn't mean: Not working; that's too literal. It just
>means that some drugs might still get through. Enforcement hasn't failed.
>Try smuggling drugs into far East countries, and it's well know that you
>lose your life at the gallows or firing squad.
According to the reports I've seen, interdiction efforts get about 10% of the
drugs coming in, and the price has not gone up.
Sounds like literally "not working" to me.
And even in the Far East countries lots of drugs get in. Some people lose
their life, and others step in to take their place because the profits
guaranteed by prohibition make the risk worth it for a lot of people.
Remove prohibition and standard market forces will result in competition and
lower prices, and regulation will ensure that people aren't selling talcum
powder or rat poison when the package says "cocaine". Cost of enforcing
non-enforceable laws will go down, and tax revenue will go up.
Prohibition is a bad idea. Always has been, always will be.
-Pete Zakel
(phz@seeheader.nospam)
"A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe
in God."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
