The solidly conservative and very British Economist magazine has just called for the
legalization of drugs in their oh so upper-class manner. Citing the impossibility of
winning the War on Drugs, the horrible costs of the War and the Right of People to do
anything that doesn't impinge someone else, the Economist concludes that society as a
whole would be better off if illegal drugs were regulated like alcohol and tobacco.
Like all Economist surveys, it's long and filled with multi-syllabic words and convoluted
paragraphs. An editorial introduction, six essays documenting all aspects of illegal
drug use from the history of drug use, to the massive profits of the drug cartels, to the
types of drugs, to the very human costs, to the inability of government to prevent drug
use, to the unbelievable amount of collateral damage are all setups for a conclusion that
leaves little room for those determined to fight illegal drug use to argue that
continuing the War on Drugs is moral or even right.
Naturally, the cynical part of me believes that the Economist is only calling for an end
to the War on Drugs so the multinational corporations can step in and capture the profit
that the drug cartels are currently enjoying.
Regardless of the ulterior motives of the Economist, given the reputation of this
magazine, this is a huge step for those of us opposing the hideous War on Drugs. And
while the War on Drugs is destined to continue for many years, I think that the pendulum
has finally started to swing away from the current furious and at this point mostly
unconstitutional attack on the supply side and few hand waving and feel good words on the
demand side towards a more pragmatic and just solution.
So when you got a few minutes, grab a drink, find a comfortable chair and...
