Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (253443)	5/7/2002 5:56:04 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

For one thing, if they were so militarized, I think that interdiction would be more effective. I'm not sure that follows. Being more militarized makes the anti-gun effort more powerful, but not any smarter. Many illegal drugs are grown or created in the US and we have millions of square miles of territory. For the imports, well we have long borders with Canada and Mexico and 2 large coastlines (3 if you count the Gulf coast as separate from the Atlantic coast). I don't see us being able to come close to shut down drugs in the US unless we have a police state, something that I don't think will happen despite the abuses, and the general expansion of federal government power. If you think, as I do, that social costs of flooding the country with drugs will exceed the costs of enforcement, especially if enforcement is fine- tuned to eliminate specific evils, then you will be in favor of a version of the War on Drugs. If the cost of enforcement is close to the cost of the increased drug use, then I would lean towards non enforcement (either legal drugs, atleast marijuana, or decriminalizing them). In fact I would have to see a large and clear benefit of the war on drugs to support it because even if the laws are enforced with no abuses I think it is intrusive for the government to tell you what you can and can't ingest. I don't think a flood of drugs is a likely prospect. Well in a sense we already have a flood of drugs, but I don't think any increase would amount to a flood over what we already use in this country. Also I'm not sure that the softer drugs are really any worse then alcohol. I don't have any personal experience with marijuana but I don't see how it is much more dangerous then alcohol. It might be less dangerous (less direct health risk and users are probably less likely to get violent). I would be interested in hearing what ideas you have for fine tuning laws and law enforcement in this area to reduce abuses and how much chance you think such reforms have of actually going in to effect. Tim