Osler's Razor

Just because they are easier to replace or disproportionately from a certain racial background doesn't make them any less guilty of breaking the law. Police should go after drug organizers AND street sellers, not instead of them.
 

Anon. 8:15--

That would be fine, but it would require many more resources. Without that, it is triage, and it is certainly wrong to go after one group that's easier and leave the other alone.

What would be most effective, probably, would be to cut demand by giving real prison terms to drug USERS. That means lots of middle class white people in jail for long terms. Would you be ok with that?
 

8:15: I'm pretty sure that no one is saying that we should let the black drug dealers carry on without consequences. I think that Osler was saying that the police should go after the street sellers AND the drug organizers, rather than just the street sellers. Am I right?
 

Anon 9:11-- yes, thats right, with the kingpins getting harsher sentences that the street dealers, something that too often is reversed under the present scheme. My problem isn't that we go after too many people, but that we don't go hard enough after the people whose loss would actually affect a drug gang.
 

9:10 --

I would absolutely be okay with that. I just think if you're guilty you should go to prison regardless of where you are in the pecking order. That means black street sellers and white middle class users alike, with appropriate sentences accordingly.
 

Well, I like the drug treatment court that the article described, and that apparently many states have. Just because it's illegal (and I also have issues with that) doesn't mean that users don't have an addiction. The addiction will still be there, whether drugs are legal or illegal.

But yes, as long as drug use is illegal, then the prosecution should go where it will be most effective at stopping the drugs.
 

I wonder why no one is addressing the fact that the market for illegal drugs continues to increase year in and year out. Perhaps we should begin to shift the focus from eradicating something for which there is a high demand, and instead focus on ways to control, regulate, and contain the problem in a way that benefits society. There are very few statistics to show that the war on drugs is working-- perhaps it's time to consider whether or not legalization, taxation, and regulation is the answer. Prohibition leads to a black market economy, which does nothing to make anyone safer, fuels crime, and wastes taxpayer resources in a futile effort to control it. As long as using drugs is enjoyable, people will always try and use them, and as long as they're illegal, there will always be people who make money from controlling the market.

That's just my 2 cents though.
 

I agree, Anonymous 8:10 pm. I see absolutely no difference between alcohol, which is legal (and trying to ban it was a huge flop) and drugs, which are illegal. Both can be highly addictive or, in moderation and used with caution, cause no harm.

Or gambling, for that matter, or smoking. Yes, they can cause harm to self and others, but people have been using drugs and brewing alcohol and gambling as long as there have been people on the earth. Trying to regulate them in a way that is best for society seems much better, to me, than a "war" which costs a lot of money with no result and imprisons people rather than helps them.