On Start The Week, one of the writers of The Wire called the entirely drugs-based economy in much of Baltimore "capitalism to the nth degree".
His prescription was wrong; the war on drugs has not been lost, because it has never been fought.
But his diagnosis was perfect.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's all in the game, yo
ReplyDeleteOh, no, it isn't.
ReplyDeleteMos' def'
ReplyDeleteGo on then - how would you fight the war on drugs?
ReplyDeleteThere should be one class of illegal drug, with a crackdown on possession, including a mandatory sentence of three months for a second offence, six months for a third offence, one year for a fourth offence, and so on.
ReplyDeleteThe despicable "Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs", a publicly funded body for the incitement of serious crime, should be abolished.
And there must be an unyielding crackdown on possession as well as supply.
If the teenage or twentysomething offspring of prominent persons get busted, then too bad, although that is most unlikely to happen, since extremely few people in that age bracket use illegal drugs, as two thirds of the population have never done, not even once.
And if prominent people themselves get busted, then so much the better.
Just for a start.
Mr Westwood, you're looking well.
I'm impressed that David spotted the Westwood reference. Don't let anyone tell you he's not in tune with contemporary cultural references.
ReplyDeleteI may be getting on a bit, but I am still younger than him.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I remember Sacha Baron Cohen the first time round.
Never trust a politician who is too into popular culture.
ReplyDeleteQuite.
ReplyDeleteLike pretty ones. They had other things to do than read, or engage in political activity. So they did them. They are, in consequence, inadequately formed or equipped.
"There should be one class of illegal drug, with a crackdown on possession, including a mandatory sentence of three months for a second offence, six months for a third offence, one year for a fourth offence, and so on."
ReplyDeleteThe Rockefeller drug laws in New York were harsher than that.
That was the legislation, in force since 1973, that the state of New York is currently in the process of scrapping, because it created a massive prison population, and didn't make a dent in the demand for or the supply of drugs. And mind you, the Rockefeller drug laws were crafted so as to apply primarily to dealers. If the minimum quantities had been set low enough to apply to the average casual user, then forget it. The state simply could not have paid for imprisonment on that scale.
Turns out that moralism and a desire to punish aren't a sufficient basis for public policy -- go figure.
You've got a plan for the fiends and the runners, but how are you going to get up on the bosses?
ReplyDeleteIf you want to fight a war on drugs, don't go crying to mummy when the drugs start fighting back.
ReplyDeleteWould you recommend The Wire, David?
ReplyDeleteDavid Simon said on the radio yesterday that the US prison population is at its highest ever, and just 6 per cent are inside for violent offences. That suggests that, for better or worse, the US authorities are cracking down on drugs offences. Do you think this level of incarceration is sustainable or desirable?
ReplyDeleteYou're overlooking the economics angle. Like my man Adam Smith said, it's all about self-interest. This here is an inelastic demand.
ReplyDelete"moralism and a desire to punish aren't a sufficient basis for public policy"
ReplyDeleteThe former, to which the latter is integral, is the only basis for public policy.
"You've got a plan for the fiends and the runners, but how are you going to get up on the bosses?"
Kill the demand by punishing possession properly (as does not now even begin to happen), and thus deterring it.
"don't go crying to mummy"
Don't worry, I won't.
"Would you recommend The Wire, David?"
I've come to it fairly late.
"That suggests that, for better or worse, the US authorities are cracking down on drugs offences"
It need not suggest any such thing. And since when was violent crime nothing to do with drugs?
"Do you think this level of incarceration is sustainable or desirable?"
Don't break the law and you won't go to jail.
"Adam Smith"
Who cares?
But thank you for proving two of my favourite points: that it is in fact economics, which is purely a matter of means rather than ends, that is no basis for public policy; and that the "free" market is the most anti-conservative force on earth.
"Don't break the law and you won't go to jail."
ReplyDeleteTrue. But if the police arrested everyone who broke the drug laws (it doesn't come close to doing so at the moment) the US prison population would more than double from its current 2 million. I don't see how this is affordable or sustainable.
They qould quickly stop breaking the law if they thought that there were any serious threat of proper punishment. At the moment they don't, because there isn't. Same as over here in fact.
ReplyDeleteUnless, of course, being a dope fiend on the streets of Baltimore is actually worse than being in jail. Plus, you're dealing with addicts, who are thinking about today, not tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteOur prison population is also at record levels. The idea that there is "no serious threat of proper punishment", here or in the US, is just silly.
ReplyDelete"Unless, of course, being a dope fiend on the streets of Baltimore is actually worse than being in jail"
ReplyDeleteThat's a very big "unless". But if it's true (and I can believe it up to a point over here, but not in the US), then make the jails more deterrent.
"Our prison population is also at record levels"
Not because the laws against the possession of drugs are being enforced, it isn't.
"Not because the laws against the possession of drugs are being enforced, it isn't"
ReplyDeleteExactly. And yet we already imprison more people than ever before. This is the point.
Which is?
ReplyDeleteIf the cops on The Wire could supply the drugs to the addicts, they'd certainly pull the rug from under the dealers.
ReplyDeleteAs the drugs would be cheaper for the addicts, there would be less criminal activity.
But the gangs would still have to be broken up and gangsters arrested - there would still be a market for recreational users of illegal drugs.
I am not in favour of the nationalisation of crime.
ReplyDelete