Latest

Total chaos has erupted in El Paso, TX following a city council resolution calling for an open dialogue about drug legalization. The mayor promptly vetoed it, and lots of angry people are talking about how we shouldn’t talk about this.

To understand how little it takes to drive drug war supporters completely insane, watch El Paso City Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s impressively reasonable argument for a dialogue on our drug policy. All he’s saying is that we should talk about drug policy options and try to address ongoing problems. And to that, the mayor replied…VETO!

Here is the totality of El Paso Mayor John Cook’s argument for not talking about drug legalization:

"It is not realistic to believe that the U.S. Congress will seriously consider any broad-based debate on the legalization of narcotics," Cook added. "That position is not consistent with the community standards both locally and nationally." [El Paso Times]

If this sounds familiar, it’s because enemies of the drug war debate have been insisting for years that there’s nothing to talk about. It’s weird too because if they’re so sure Congress will never do it, then there’s really no good reason to obstruct the conversation. What are they afraid of?

Of course, the downside of claiming a monopoly on reality and refusing to debate is that you look like an idiot. And that’s exactly what appears to be happening here, as the mayor’s allies are refusing to back his veto and the council is pushing for an override.

So all we have to do is win the debate over whether or not to have a debate, and we can finally get around to debating. I can't wait.

One of the least impressive arguments you’ll ever here from drug war supporters is that we have to keep drugs illegal otherwise all the drug offenders will move on to other more horrible types of crime. Check out how LEAP’s Howard Wooldridge rips it apart in a Wall Street Journal LTE:

I learned something about how drug prohibition generates crime during my 18 years of police service. Eighty percent of my property-crime case load was caused by addicts needing money to pay sky-high prices for crack, etc. Legal crack would cost an addict about a dollar per day, as would heroin and amphetamines.

Ronald Shafer (Letters, Dec. 30) worries about what drug dealers would do without their prohibition-generated jobs. The one million teens who sell drugs would begin flipping burgers and mowing yards. Serious thugs will rob banks where we will capture or kill them. Or was Mr. Shafer suggesting to continue prohibition as a jobs program for bad guys?

It’s really just that simple. People like to sell drugs because it’s ridiculously easy and profitable, not because they’re all born criminals. I can’t say for sure what all of them will do if we regulate them out of business, but I can tell you what they won’t do: sell drugs on the street to anyone with a $5 bill. And that’s the point.

We’re the only people entering this discussion with a plan to actually stop people from selling drugs on the sidewalk in our communities. Our plan may not be perfect, but the alternative is a proven disaster.

Flex Your Rights' opposition to random searches on D.C. public transportation has finally pushed Metro officials over the edge. Whole story here.

It does not bother me that John Walters, Director of National Drug Control Policy, is passionate about his positions on drug addiction and how it is best treated; with opinions I can always respectfully disagree. What is unacceptable are lies, fallacies, and deceptive wording in federal government publications.