<< News Scan | Main | On the Virtues of Civilian Trials, Blah, Blah, Blah... >>


A Parody of Drug "Strategy"

| 3 Comments
The White House has come out with its 2014 edition of the National Drug Strategy.  

In a sense, I have to take my hat off to anyone who can write 79 pages of pure mush, using every left wing shibboleth for the last generation, and never come up for air. The idea that a sensible strategy might include putting meth (etc.) traffickers in the slammer is all but invisible.
 
Still, I'll give the authors credit for a sense of embarrassment (for once).  Out of all 79 pages, they could only choke out four sentences buried in the middle to give a pat on the head to Eric Holder and "smart" sentencing.  Part of this, of course, stems from their unwillingness to understand that any kind of sentencing might be useful.
 
I'm truly astonished that they can find someone to sit at a computer all day and churn out this stuff.  The job market must be even worse than the White House is admitting.

3 Comments

Bill: Link seems not to be working... more importantly, can/will you draft few paragraph to demonstrate what you think would be a real and sound drug strategy for the feds? Is it status quo or get even tougher, especially on pot?

Doug: Sorry about the link. I got an advance copy from a private source. The public link is:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/ndcs_2014.pdf

There is no way I'm going to try to compete, or would want to compete, with 79 pages of governmentese.

I will say that of course it's true that the War on Drugs has not succeeded, as you and Alex keep insisting. Neither has the war on poverty, sickness, murder, rape, aggravated assault, embezzlement, carjacking, robbery and you name it. Indeed, there are still more than ten million reported serious crimes in this country every year.

So, since the War on Crime also has not succeeded, it's time to give up, right?

What the pro-drug forces simply refuse to take seriously is that it's not the War on Drugs, but drug abuse, that is causing so much misery and (thousands of times every year) death.

My former colleagues at the DEA at least take this suffering seriously and try to do something to stop it. The pro-drug forces, by contrast, just can't be troubled, and do ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to try seriously to tamp down drug use. Indeed they encourage such use, if not directly, then by downplaying the harmfulness of drugs and instead painting DEA agents as thugs. They also want to make the cost of doing business as a drug trafficker go down by reducing the potential punishments.

As to pot: It's already de facto legal, as I'm sure you (and everyone else) know. To the very minor extent it's illegal, the penalties are generally nominal. It's just a counter-culture diversion by people who never got over their juvenile obsession with thumbing their nose at authority, and think in their adolescent way that puffing joints is a "standing up for freedom."

"Standing up for freedom" is putting a bullet through the head of Osama bin Laden. Do you think the people who did that were stoned? Do you think the training that enabled them to do it involved working out with a bong?

It's time for all of us to grow up and think about the things that count for the country's wellbeing -- things like putting the Liberal Holy Cow, the entitlement state, on a diet before it drives us into national bankruptcy. All the angst about pot is silliness.

Bill, like many others, here it seems your are much more interested in assailing those you dislike rather than explaining and justifying what you support.

You assail in the main post what this report says, and I ask you to give me a sense of what you think it should say. You in turn assail pro-drug forces and those who claim to stand up for freedom, and then talk about killing bin Laden and entitlements. Whoa, that is quite a shift, and tells me nothing about how you think the Feds now should be fighting the drug war.

I will ask again: do you think the Feds circa 2014 ought to be seeking tougher sentences and more taxpayer monies to fight the drug war? Do you think it should be trying to shut down the state experiments with pot reform in Colorado and Washington? I know what you dislike, Bill, but I am just seeking to better understand what constructive federal government programming you favor and want to finance.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives