By continuing your visit to this site, you accept the use of cookies. These ensure the smooth running of our services. Learn more.

« Jomhuri Eslamiyi tries to convert on third and long | HomePage | So what is the definition of "global guerrilla," anyway? »

Wednesday, September 26, 20071190816100

The Cost of the War on Drugs

An Associated Press story, 3 Charged in PC Magazine Editor's Death:

Three men have been charged with murdering a senior editor for PC World magazine in what police said was an attempt to steal marijuana that the victim's son grew in their home for medical use.

Rex Farrance, 59, the San Francisco-based magazine's senior technical editor, was shot in the chest on Jan. 9 after masked men broke into his suburban home.

Prohibition kills.


I never thought I'd see the day! Killing for pot? I could probably get the stuff from my students in about 30 minutes if I made an announcement in class and let them run back to their dorm rooms. I mean, how desperate do you really have to be?!

Foreign Policy has an interested article on the subject (legalization of drugs) in its current issue:


Posted by: David Hallowell | Wednesday, September 26, 2007

"Prohibition Kills" - I hope you are being sarcastic. That guy who shot the homeowner killed - not prohibition. MMM

Posted by: mmm | Thursday, September 27, 2007


Certainly there is a murderer who is at fault, but the crime is enabled by higher-level processes, as well.

In the same way, 19 men did the killing on September 11. That did not mean that the horror was not enabled by deeper problems in the Sunni Arab world.

The War on Drugs is a large-scale infringement on individual and state rights by the federal government. If such a federal powergrab can be justified by the results, then maybe we should live with it. The the results it produces are bad, not good. So then, what is the point?

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, September 27, 2007

Dan, I would have to say that this is one opinion of yours I support 100%.

That and the whole asian girl thing ;)

Posted by: biz | Thursday, September 27, 2007

So Dan, you're saying that if I kill a man because he has a fridge full of Capital Brewing Blond Dopplebock (impossible to get here in AZ unless I hire the Bandit and the Snowman to drive down a truckload, and I can't afford that), that the problem is the Homeland Security and postal laws that don't allow me to transport one myself on a plane or order one through the mail?

Color me unconvinced.

Posted by: Mike | Thursday, September 27, 2007


Thanks for the comment!

If you transition a market from white (legal and aboveground) to grey (nominally illegal but intermittently enforced) or black (illegal), you increase crime. Regulations that impact logistical methods of the doppledock industry have minimal impact on the market's legitimacy and hence on crime. The War on Drugs is a wholly different matter.


I also agree with many of your opinions, but your pronunciation of "pseudo" as "swaydo" is both ill-informed and offensive to those who wear suede.

I take it the second part of your comment was not run by your fiancee? :-p

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Friday, September 28, 2007

Consider also the fact that the WoD has sewn discord well beyond the creation of crime in America and is actually a very active financial catalyst for the Gap, as Steve mentions (and Isaac addresses) here [1] in the commentary.


Posted by: Jay@Soob | Friday, September 28, 2007