National Review on Latin American Drug Decrim: They're ahead of the U.S. curve!

Nick Gillespie | September 10, 2009

Over at National Review Online's video channel, Kevin Williamson talks with host Will Cain about the rush in Latin America to denounce U.S.-style "prohibitionist policies." Williamson argues that Mexico's decriminalization policies will lead to all sorts of positive outcomes.

Watch the whole thing (approx. five minutes) here.

Comments

|9.10.09 @ 12:35PM|#

Good to see that National Review maintains its anti prohibitionist ways.
And hasn't slid to a faux conservative "law & order" conservatism.

It would be nice if it could remain true to "individual liberty" conservatism during a R administration.

|9.10.09 @ 1:13PM|#

What we really need is for Mexico to start producing drugs officially for sale to U.S. consumers and then cry foul of free trade agreements when our government doesn't allow them to sell here.

|9.10.09 @ 1:16PM|#

Decriminalization is a positive step, but it leaves in place nearly all the costs of prohibition. Very little benefit will be realized without legalization.

|9.10.09 @ 1:19PM|#

Nick | September 10, 2009, 1:13pm | #
What we really need is for Mexico to start producing drugs officially for sale to U.S. consumers and then cry foul of free trade agreements when our government doesn't allow them to sell here.

There's no violation if there isn't a legal US market. Still US prohibition could not be sustained next to a legal Mexican market.

|9.10.09 @ 1:53PM|#

Still US prohibition could not be sustained next to a legal Mexican market.

Eh, maybe it could. Mexico could just be the place to go to smoke weed on vacation, like Amsterdam.

Plenty of counties and towns in the US maintain their dry status by having people go to the next county over when they want a drink.

M o n k e e |9.10.09 @ 2:04PM|#

"Plenty of counties and towns in the US maintain their dry status"

hahaha

Saudiarabiazville

Fred|9.10.09 @ 2:15PM|#

What we really need is for Mexico to start producing drugs officially for sale to U.S. consumers and then cry foul of free trade agreements when our government doesn't allow them to sell here.

They can't do that, all countries are required to have drug prohibition by treaty due to the single convention on controlled substances. Legalizing would be an act of war, all they can do is decriminialize.

Ska|9.10.09 @ 2:46PM|#

So the Swiss are more free market, and South America has better drug policy. Why are so many dedicated to making our country suck?

Ratdog|9.10.09 @ 3:29PM|#

We hold these truths to be self-evident,
That all men are created equal,
That they are endowed by their Creator
with certain alienable Rights,
That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness when deemed appropriate.-
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted over Men,
Deriving their omnipotent powers from themselves without the consent of the governed.

(Oh crap, what ever the Constitution was infected with when it transformed into a "living breathing" document that says what it's told must be contagious, because it's spreading.)

Just the NyQuil typing. Sorry.

|9.10.09 @ 3:34PM|#

Germany and New Zealand have legal prostitution. Amsterdam has legal weed. Thailand has all sorts of shit. The UK has legal sports betting.

Germany has pooporn and no free speech. New Zealand is really far away. Thailand has all sorts of shit. The UK has 1984 as a How-To Guide.

Pick your poison.

|9.10.09 @ 3:55PM|#

STFULW!

|9.10.09 @ 5:31PM|#

Plenty of counties and towns in the US maintain their dry status.

"Dry" means there aren't any liquor stores, not that there isn't any drinking.

I used to live in a dry county. What it meant was that, after driving 30 miles to the liquor store, you stocked up. Then, since you had a ton of booze, you drank more. From my experience, dry = more drinking.

|9.10.09 @ 5:32PM|#

Legalizing would be an act of war,

Well, no. It would be a treaty violation, but an act of war requires actual armed aggression of some kind.

|9.10.09 @ 6:40PM|#

Well spake Nick

|9.10.09 @ 7:39PM|#

"Dry" means there aren't any liquor stores, not that there isn't any drinking.

In some places it means that restaurants don't serve alcohol by the drink, but there are still liquor stores. Some prohibit both purchase for both on and off premises drinking.

The common dry county trivia is that Lynchburg, TN, where the Jack Daniels distillery is, is a dry county with a special exemption for Jack Daniels selling mini-bottles to tourists.

But it depends what you mean by "prohibition could not be sustained." I don't think that the situation would be all that different from now in CA.

lunchstealer|9.18.09 @ 3:37PM|#

There are some counties - all that I know of are in Mississippi, go figure - where possession of alcohol is prohibited. The Freedom RV or whatever they were ran afoul of that kind of stupidity.

So yeah, Riyadh-on-the-Delta.