It is possible to be against federal regulation of drugs yet for it, locally, as the constitution ordered. This is a decision for local politics, wherein the conservatives and libertarians and everybody else can make their case.
There are any number of illegal activities in my community that are underground where they are: operating illegally, out of sight, not influencing children and may be shut down and eliminated upon discovery by police. That's how I want them regulated. I most certainly don't want a federal law enforcement agency doing this in my neighborhood. I want someone accountable to me locally. We're losing the "war on drugs" nationally - because we decided to make it a national problem - in direct violation of the constitution. This is a local issue - it should be adjudicated and policed and prosecuted locally. And each community can determine the level of enforcement (perhaps none) with which they are comfortable.
We are losing the War on Drugs because prohibition does not work. It should be treated as a public health problem, with the subset of users that are addicts being treated medically rather than criminally.
I dont' dispute localities' right to prohibit - my point is that it has made things worse, not better.
It is such a wicked problem, highlighted of late by the flood of fentanyl on the market. As you clearly illustrated, prohibition not only doesn't work, it exacerbates the problem, and causes myriad others. Yet free reign on drug use will not lower the numbers of lives destroyed, nor crimes committed. Yes, the crime of drug use, possession and sales automatically goes away, but not the associated crimes committed by addicts. It is already a public health problem, calling it that instead of a law enforcement problem may be more accurate, but I doubt it will help. If you believe that the amount of funding going to the law enforcement and incarceration side of the equation currently would be transferred automatically to the public health sector, we are in disagreement. I'm not opposed to legalization, as our current tactics do not work, clearly. I have few illusions, however, it will change the effects on our society of harmful "recreational" drug use. Like I said, a wcked problem, with no real solutions.
It is possible to be against federal regulation of drugs yet for it, locally, as the constitution ordered. This is a decision for local politics, wherein the conservatives and libertarians and everybody else can make their case.
Sure, but to what end? The problems of prohibition remain.
There are any number of illegal activities in my community that are underground where they are: operating illegally, out of sight, not influencing children and may be shut down and eliminated upon discovery by police. That's how I want them regulated. I most certainly don't want a federal law enforcement agency doing this in my neighborhood. I want someone accountable to me locally. We're losing the "war on drugs" nationally - because we decided to make it a national problem - in direct violation of the constitution. This is a local issue - it should be adjudicated and policed and prosecuted locally. And each community can determine the level of enforcement (perhaps none) with which they are comfortable.
We are losing the War on Drugs because prohibition does not work. It should be treated as a public health problem, with the subset of users that are addicts being treated medically rather than criminally.
I dont' dispute localities' right to prohibit - my point is that it has made things worse, not better.
It is such a wicked problem, highlighted of late by the flood of fentanyl on the market. As you clearly illustrated, prohibition not only doesn't work, it exacerbates the problem, and causes myriad others. Yet free reign on drug use will not lower the numbers of lives destroyed, nor crimes committed. Yes, the crime of drug use, possession and sales automatically goes away, but not the associated crimes committed by addicts. It is already a public health problem, calling it that instead of a law enforcement problem may be more accurate, but I doubt it will help. If you believe that the amount of funding going to the law enforcement and incarceration side of the equation currently would be transferred automatically to the public health sector, we are in disagreement. I'm not opposed to legalization, as our current tactics do not work, clearly. I have few illusions, however, it will change the effects on our society of harmful "recreational" drug use. Like I said, a wcked problem, with no real solutions.
We have the lesson of Portugal. There, everything was decriminalized, and abuse, addiction, and crime all went down.