LEGALIZE NARCOTICS
In order “not to trample the livelihoods of those we are trying to win over” the U.S. military “no longer eradicates” opium-producing poppies in Afghanistan, according to the N.Y. Times. In effect, then, the U.S. government is safeguarding the supply of opiates for American narcotics users (at least until it reaches U.S. shores) and underwriting a significant portion of the expenses — guns, ammo, victuals, soldiers’ pay -- of its adversaries in the field, the Taliban.
Am I crazy or is the U.S. government sipping tea with the Mad Hatter?
If we’re willing to go this far in compromising our prohibitionist principles to the detriment of our national interests, why not go all the way and legalize narcotics? In one fell swoop, such a policy would:
Undercut funding for the Taliban, reducing the enemy’s will and ability to fight
Undercut financing for organized crime around the world, reducing drug-related violence and corruption
Reduce the costs and overcrowding of the penal system and discourage the manufacture of criminals from the pool of incarcerated drug offenders
Unclog the legal system
Free up law enforcement resources to fight non-drug-related crime
Redirect funds from enforcement to education and rehabilitation, dampening the abuse of narcotics
Provide a new source of taxes
Provide a new source of employment (taxes, employment and the reduction of crime were the main reasons cited by the Roosevelt administration in repealing Prohibition).
Control the purity and dosage of drugs for those who choose to use them, reducing the incidence of death from impurities and overdosing
Reduce antagonism, mistrust and violence between the government and the people
By allowing employers and schools the right to maintain drug-free workplaces/study places (with corresponding rights to test, fire and expel), an enlightened drug policy would help keep a lid on the use of drugs. This would be similar to the banning of alcohol in schools and proscriptions against the abuse of alcohol in the workplace, making drug control a local, private, personal matter, rather than an impersonal, national or state government responsibility backed up by the use of deadly force and incarceration.
As for the Afghan farmers, they would have no incentive to grow poppies, and instead would be forced to produce food to the benefit of the country. If the need was seen to subsidize their livelihood in order to maintain their loyalty to the central government, this could be accomplished by building schools, health clinics and infrastructure.