Reason Writers Around Town

|

In the LA Times, Brian Doherty takes the White House to task for quashing Mexico's drug reform.

NEXT: Mining Their Own Business

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What part of “prohibition doesn’t work” do these people not understand?

  2. Brian sez: “WE ARE fortunate enough not to have rebel armies funded by profits from the illegal coca market within our borders. And we can afford not to care about the thousands of murders a year and dangerously rampant police corruption in Mexico caused by the drug laws we refuse to let it change.”

    I don’t know about that. Look at SWAT teams, DEA task forces, gangs, etc. I wouldn’t call our police rampantly corrupt, but there is plenty of corruption in US police ranks.

    And it’s all caused by drug laws that we (our politicians) refuse to let change.

  3. When are other nations going to stand up and say they’ve had enough of America’s BS drug war? I tend to think that it will be when developing nations that don’t care about such things become economic giants themselves and smaller nations can ignore us as a result. But I don’t know who it will be. China executed opium smokers during the revolution and I know nothing about Indian drug law. They could grow large enough and decide to take a different path.

    Who would have guessed the US would make threats? Not hard at all to predict.

  4. What part of “prohibition doesn’t work” do these people not understand?

    To quote Bill Mumy as Lennier on Babylon 5: “Understanding is not required, only obedience.”

  5. When are other nations going to stand up and say they’ve had enough of America’s BS drug war?

    They’re not. For some reason this myth has arisen that other countries don’t take “the drugs menace” as seriously as “we” do. One only has to listen to the BBC or read a foreign paper to know that this is not so. Or read anything that come out of the UN Commission on Drugs and Crime. The alarmist talk can get every bit as strident as the worst US drug warrior.

    The only difference is that other countries do not impose jail sentences as long as those in the US. But that is true of all crimes, not just drug offenses. There are those who consider this to be a sign that they are “soft on crime”.

    It is also worth noting that those places that have “decriminalized” pot still prohibit trafficking. So in order to indulge your legal right to pot you still have to find someone willing to break the law to supply you with it. That should be troubling to those who value the rule of law.

  6. If everyone has the same attitude we do then why must we threaten them with sanctions when they decided to take a different road? Clearly decriminalized pot isn’t the same attitude as the feds have here. If we lost our economic power or other nations, would the alarmist talk in other places abate?

  7. That was a great editorial! Issac, you were also enlightening.

    Is there any pool going in Reason for what year the U.S. (or a state) legalizes pot? I have 2050.

  8. M’ at May 13, 2006 03:49 AM

    While it’s true that the US exerts a scandalous amount of pressure in those instances, the tripping point of defeating the measures is due to pressure from internal drug warriors who are far more numerous than people seem to realize.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.