The normally-astute Iain Murray seems to have a blind spot when it comes to the drug-legalization issue. He demonstrates it in a TechCentralStation article today. While I agree with him that the data is ambiguous, and with too many entangled factors to draw any firm conclusions, I take some umbrage at his last line:

The rest of us, however, will have to wait a while before "More Drugs, Less Crime" appears on the nation's bookshelves.

I don't ever expect to see a book titled "More Drugs, Less Crime," at least not one that's worth reading.

Of course, it's a strawman, because those favoring drug decriminalization or legalization are not (necessarily) in favor of more drugs--I'm certainly not. We just want less expensive ones that don't require crime to sustain habits, and that don't provide incentive for turf wars between gangs heavily armed by high drug profits.

Such a book would actually be titled "Fewer Drug Laws, Less Crime."

The policy that I've generally favored is decommercialization" of currently banned drugs. People would be free to possess, manufacture, or use whatever mind alterants they prefer, but they would remain prohibited from selling them. This, I would expect, would take much of the profits out of the trade in illegal drugs, while preserving a social stigma (and legal penalty) against those who exploit the weaknesses of others.

The existing laws against driving under the influence, etc. would of course remain to punish other destructive drug-related behaviors.

Except "decommercialization" won't work, Ken. People won't be able to produce their own drugs any more than they can produce their own cars, nor should they have to.

The War on Alcohol (aka Prohibition) didn't work in the 1920s. Our current War on Drugs isn't working, and never has. What did our grandparents learn, and what have we FAILED to learn?

Hale Adams