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.

It does not bother me that John Walters, Director of National Drug Control Policy, is passionate about his positions on drug addiction and how it is best treated; with opinions I can always respectfully disagree. What is unacceptable are lies, fallacies, and deceptive wording in federal government publications.

Barack Obama is looking at CNN correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta to serve as surgeon general, providing yet more ammunition for those of us who like to constantly point out how bad his choices are when it comes to drug policy.

Here's Gupta's 2006 article "Why I Would Vote No on Pot." The reason? Because "marijuana isn't really very good for you," as though that has anything do with whether or not it makes sense to arrest nearly 1 million American a year for possessing it. The bright side is that Gupta acknowledges "health benefits for some patients." Unfortunately, he then proceeds to complain that most medical marijuana supporters "just want to get stoned legally," as though that justifies supporting laws that hurt legitimate patients.

Hopefully, if Gupta is our next surgeon general, he will come to understand that there is in fact an enormous war on marijuana users in America that harms them in all sorts of ways that aren't really very good for you either.