Timmyhawk

LEGALIZE IT
Danny Kushlick of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation explains the hidden costs of drug prohibition:

So far so good. But I wonder if this aside was strictly necessary:

Now, first of all studies about this link are ambivalent and by no means as clear as he suggests. For example one could easily ask about a linkage between religious observance and drug misuse. Why doesn't he say that the decline of Christianity in Britain has caused the large wave of drug misuse? Unlike the rich-poor gap this link is easily established by historical experience. In the 19th century different church movements were busy trying to make Britain a better place (how successful they were is another matter). Drugs, including heroin, cocaine and opium smoking were freely available and nobody thought of banning them. At the same time there was no problem. The gap between rich and poor, the gulf between the classes was infinitely bigger than it is today. So arguing that differences in wealth are the sole or even the main cause is nonsense. To be clear about this, religion isn't it either necessarily. Perhaps Kushlik wrote that because his article is in the Guardian, but I'm not so sure. I often find that people who support decriminalisation and legalisation are ideologically not quite in the same camp as me, to put a fine point on it. This is regrettable. There are many sensible right-wing arguments, both conservative and libertarian, that can be made in favour of such a change in policy. By using the cause of drug freedom in such an ideologically narrow way is making a multi-partisan consensus on the issue unnecessarily difficult.