But haven't we learned by now that "doing something" is often worse than doing nothing at all? But, but, but ...
As Thomas Sowell says:
No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: "But what would you replace it with?" When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with.
If you're against a certain policy, you see, it is claimed that you're against the stated intentions of said policy (you know, those things which pave the road to hell).
If you're against welfare for example, you want others to eat dirt. If you're against social security, you want grandma to eat cat food and die. If you're against the War in Iraq, you're pro-terrorist. If you're against the Drug War, you're a long-haired, dope-smoking, ideological hippie who desires a lawless society.
See how that works? It keeps things simple in order to avoid discussing said policies "unintended consequences."
Thomas Sowell on the Drug War:
The above video was excerpted from Thomas Sowell's book, "Compassion Versus Guilt, and other Essays." Here's a few more quotes from the video:
Drug raids are good politics, but they don't make a dent in the problem.
Like prohibition, the ban on drugs has been a financial bonanza for organized crime, and its profits have financed the corruption of law enforcement agencies, politicians, and judges.
It is a dangerous illusion that we have the omnipotence to undue every evil. A crusading mentality can easily makes things worse. Drugs are inherently a problem for the individual who takes them, but they are a much bigger problem for society, precisely because they are illegal.
This is just one more area where we have to recognize government has its limits. Ignoring those limits is not only reckless arrogance, but dangerous.
The Economist magazine says this means that more than 200 million people -- almost 5 percent of the world's adult population -- take illegal drugs, the same proportion as a decade ago. The annual U.S. bill for attempting to diminish the supply of drugs is $40 billion. Of the 1.5 million Americans arrested each year on drug offenses, half a million are incarcerated. "Tougher drug laws are the main reason why one in five black American men spend some time behind bars," The Economist said.
"There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer." Do cultural differences explain this? Evidently not: "Even in fairly similar countries tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates."
The good news is the progress America has made against tobacco, which is more addictive than most illegal drugs. And then there is alcohol.
In "Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson," historian David S. Reynolds writes that in 1820, Americans spent on liquor a sum larger than the federal government's budget. By the mid-1820s, annual per capita consumption of absolute alcohol reached seven gallons, more than three times today's rate. "Most employers," Reynolds reports, "assumed that their workers needed strong drink for stimulation: a typical workday included two bells, one rung at 11 a.m. and the other at 4 p.m., that summoned employees for alcoholic drinks."
The elderly Walt Whitman said, "It is very hard for the present generation anyhow to understand the drinkingness of those years. ... it is quite incommunicable."
It's time to face the music folks ... The Drug War is more dangerous than the drugs are themselves.