the redworm Wrote:
the point is, though, is that PEOPLE DO DRUGS. No matter what happens, people will keep doing them.
You could use that argument with anything that is against the law.
the point is, though, that PEOPLE RAPE CHILDREN. No matter what happens, people will keep doing them."
haha. I couldn't resist using that example.
I do agree though that trying to stop marijuana at all costs is a futile exercise, because they could spend more money on finding and destroying meth labs or the aforementioned child molesters. However, legalizing drugs, IMO, will not reduce crime it will just change what kind we see prominently.
the difference is that raping children (or speeding or jaywalking) doesn't have the potential to make you assloads of money real real fast. the unbeatable economic incentive to sell drugs is what keeps them available and on the street. there's this unspoken assumption that locking up drug dealers impacts the availability of drugs. fact is, it doesn't--wonky criminal justice nerds call it the hydra head problem. for every drug dealer you lock up, another one always steps up to take his place. about the best you can accomplish is temporary disruptions in supply, which gives the dealers that aren't behind bars an excuse to raise prices and make even more money. talk to any cop who's been involved in drug eradication--i've yet to meet one who believes drugs are any harder to get than they were twenty years ago. this is despite countless billions spent on drug enforcement and scores of people locked up. so if locking up drug dealers doesn't stop the supply of drugs, why do it? are we locking people in cages to prove a point?
