Mary O’Grady on the Drug War

Drug prohibition will only be abolished once the state has been abolished. Ask yourself who benefits from drug prohibition and you will understand why.

No two ways about it...the war on drugs is a waste at best...at worst it kills more people than it plans to save.
Most importantly, it goes against the very principle of liberty.

And not even the correlations support its existence. It has nothing but blind faith.

Amazing commentary from a writer for the WSJ, whose adamant editorial position is full speed ahead with the drug war.

"The war on supply is a failure, something any first-year economics student could have predicted. But this plan is unlikely to reverse the situation. It is demand north of the border that is the primary driver of organized-crime terror. And that shows no signs of abating."

Mary O'Grady gets that right, silver star to her.

You can not cure the desire for consumer goods by trying to shut down stores.

The user is the problem, always has been the problem, and always will be the problem. Nothing more to be said about that.

Why is the user the "problem"? That's like saying radial tire consumers are the problem, not the new tarrifs on Chinese tires. The problem is that our society refuses to let people seek their happiness in the ways they choose, instead imposing, by violence, the majority's opinion on the minority. Until the nannies finally quit trying to make everyone else conform to their own sensibilities, nothing will change. That is the problem.

seanooski,

I was addressing the situation as it exists, in that we have a drug war.

I agree that the consumer should not be the problem and in a world where government left us alone in our choices, neither the consumer or the supplier would be a problem.

We can only wish for sanity.

Right on.

Until the nannies finally quit trying to make everyone else conform to their own sensibilities, nothing will change. That is the problem.

Yes! Reading the comments to the original article is depressing as one commenter after another proposes various intrusive solutions to the "drug problem" which would be much less of a problem if people would just mind their own business.

Mexican Drug Lords are uber-Libertarians - they don't talk about hating government, they shoot them dead. After all:

"When Mr. Calderón took office in December 2006, he pledged to restore order. By all accounts his 'war' is being waged on the belief that a free society cannot be held hostage by organized crime, not on the belief that supply can be defeated. "

Libertarians would argue the government hold everyone else 'hostage' and is itself 'organised crime' hence Mexican Drug Lords are engaging in reasonable retalitory force.

"Almost 1,150 law enforcement agents and military have been murdered in the last three years in this war."

Or should that be: "almost 1,150 thugs of the local mafia gangs have been shot in self-defence in the last three years trying unsuccesfully to hold onto 'their turf' in the midst of business entrepreneurs who are simply trying to supply their voluntary customers with their products?

That's an interesting take on the situation. Very clever! However, I would guess that the drug lords are merely competing thugs who would behave just as the government thugs are, were the roles reversed.

Nope. Do Drug Lords indiscriminately target those who are not impinging on their market? If government left them alone would the deaths cease?