Houston, we have a philosophical problem... Why make it legal for me to have and use something, but then make it illegal to sell it? Recreational drugs are fine for me to use, but bad for someone to supply to me? It's okay for me to have 25 milligrams of heroin, and you also, but then you're suddenly a criminal if I ask you to hold my stuff while I prepare to shoot up? What other substances are treated this way? (Opposite situation: FDR confiscated all privately-held gold and made private ownership of gold a criminal offense, unless you were a coin collector.) Note that the Mexican law would have held consumers of drugs blameless, but would have placed even harsher penalties on suppliers of the same drugs. Put together, it would seem that the message is that people aren't responsible for their drug consumption; the blame lies squarely and only on those who meet the (now-legitimate) demand. As a friend of mine likes to say, no snowflake wants to think it's part of the blizzard. (Which would be particularly apt when applied to cocaine.) Incentive-wise, Fox's bill would have created a space for an expanded demand for certain recreational drugs (decriminalization always increases consumption), but also more penallties for those who will inevitably be drawn to fill that demand. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see more wrecked lives: more people addicted to harmful substances (e.g. crack, heroin), and more people moved into the distribution part of the drug trade, suffering higher penalties when they're caught. Even proponents of drug legalization argue the distribution should be legalized -- indeed, that's supposed to be the big winner: tax the drug trade, and stop all the killing. What was Fox thinking? Add your two cents...
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once. |