Latest

Pete Guither lists a couple of the worst arguments we hear from our opponents. There are basically an infinite number of stupid reasons to oppose drug policy reform ("My girlfriend was smoking all this weed and making out with hippies and we broke up"), but Pete's right that the worst arguments are often regurgitated repetitively, so it's worth taking note of the common ones. Fun too, if you like banging your head against a wall.

I wrote yesterday about El Paso Mayor John Cook’s veto of a city council resolution calling for a debate on our drug policy. Today, Former El Paso Mayor Bill Tilney came out in favor of the vetoed resolution.

As a former mayor, I understand the position taken by Mayor John Cook, when he decided to veto the resolution at the last moment. [link] The City of El Paso is dependent in many ways on both the Texas state government and the United States federal government for funding of many important projects. Tweaking their noses could have unpleasant consequences. U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, who has done a great job as the region's representative, was chief of the Border Patrol for many years. Given the fact that he was involved in the "war on drugs" and interdiction here along the border, he may have reservations about launching a national debate at City Council. Nevertheless, given President-elect Barack Obama's philosophy of "Yes, we can change," this seems a propitious moment to give El Paso center stage at the national level. Also the simple truth that the last three presidents have experimented with illegal drugs, like cocaine or marijuana, makes it a most apropos time to initiate a national debate. [Newspaper Tree]

It just gets better from there. Read the whole thing. It’s wonderful to see conversations about our drug policy bubbling up in new places without the involvement of the usual familiar faces. If this is a sign of the direction we’re headed, that can only be a good thing.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta's anti-pot article contains this passage:

That's why I, like many other doctors, am unimpressed with the proposed legislation, which would legalize marijuana irrespective of any medical condition.

Now if you actually read the linked article, it's clearly a call for the drug's  legalization:

The chief dangers of marijuana, practically, seem to spring from only one of its features: it's illegal. People get beat up, shot up and locked up because of the great amount of money that rides on selling the stuff, stuff that would be about as expensive as lettuce if it weren't against the law. I have treated people seriously hurt by the illegality of pot.

...  I also feel pretty strongly that nearly every child should study Latin—really—but I don't think we should lock them up if they don't.

Hanging around with all sorts of big dope-smokers for the same 35 years I should have bumped into at least one or two with those "serious health effects". The fact is I haven't.

But when you try to change certain things by force, things close to the core about what folks love and hate, about their personalities, you just run into trouble. It doesn't work. You might knock down but you will never build up. This is why the government is better off out of the marijuana business.

Either Gupta didn't read the article, or someone at Time linked the other story, without reading it!

From CNN Money:

FYI, I've found a good way to stay on top of prohibition news in my RSS reader (I use Bloglines).

Total chaos has erupted in El Paso, TX following a city council resolution calling for an open dialogue about drug legalization. The mayor promptly vetoed it, and lots of angry people are talking about how we shouldn’t talk about this.

To understand how little it takes to drive drug war supporters completely insane, watch El Paso City Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s impressively reasonable argument for a dialogue on our drug policy. All he’s saying is that we should talk about drug policy options and try to address ongoing problems. And to that, the mayor replied…VETO!

Here is the totality of El Paso Mayor John Cook’s argument for not talking about drug legalization:

"It is not realistic to believe that the U.S. Congress will seriously consider any broad-based debate on the legalization of narcotics," Cook added. "That position is not consistent with the community standards both locally and nationally." [El Paso Times]

If this sounds familiar, it’s because enemies of the drug war debate have been insisting for years that there’s nothing to talk about. It’s weird too because if they’re so sure Congress will never do it, then there’s really no good reason to obstruct the conversation. What are they afraid of?

Of course, the downside of claiming a monopoly on reality and refusing to debate is that you look like an idiot. And that’s exactly what appears to be happening here, as the mayor’s allies are refusing to back his veto and the council is pushing for an override.

So all we have to do is win the debate over whether or not to have a debate, and we can finally get around to debating. I can't wait.

One of the least impressive arguments you’ll ever here from drug war supporters is that we have to keep drugs illegal otherwise all the drug offenders will move on to other more horrible types of crime. Check out how LEAP’s Howard Wooldridge rips it apart in a Wall Street Journal LTE:

I learned something about how drug prohibition generates crime during my 18 years of police service. Eighty percent of my property-crime case load was caused by addicts needing money to pay sky-high prices for crack, etc. Legal crack would cost an addict about a dollar per day, as would heroin and amphetamines.

Ronald Shafer (Letters, Dec. 30) worries about what drug dealers would do without their prohibition-generated jobs. The one million teens who sell drugs would begin flipping burgers and mowing yards. Serious thugs will rob banks where we will capture or kill them. Or was Mr. Shafer suggesting to continue prohibition as a jobs program for bad guys?

It’s really just that simple. People like to sell drugs because it’s ridiculously easy and profitable, not because they’re all born criminals. I can’t say for sure what all of them will do if we regulate them out of business, but I can tell you what they won’t do: sell drugs on the street to anyone with a $5 bill. And that’s the point.

We’re the only people entering this discussion with a plan to actually stop people from selling drugs on the sidewalk in our communities. Our plan may not be perfect, but the alternative is a proven disaster.

Flex Your Rights' opposition to random searches on D.C. public transportation has finally pushed Metro officials over the edge. Whole story here.