Letter writers: Decrim doesn't go far enough As stated elsewhere, Decrimwatch would rather see the formal regulation of marijuana, as opposed to the decriminalization plan presented in Chicago. However, decrim is a step in the right direction, and it's sparking the kind of debate I expected about futher reforms. The Chicago Tribune today prints two letters from people who argue that regulation would be superior (registration required at the Trib site - you might as well do it if you're going to follow this issue). Articulate drug policy activist Robert Sharpe makes the case shortly and sweetly:
As long as marijuana distribution remains in the hands of organized crime, consumers will continue to come into contact with sellers of hard drugs like cocaine. This "gateway" is the direct result of a fundamentally flawed policy.
Given that marijuana is arguably safer than legal alcohol, it makes no sense to waste tax dollars enforcing a failed policy of marijuana prohibition that finances organized crime and facilitates the use of hard drugs.
Another letter offers a similar argument relating to all drugs, with very specific recommendations:
I would suggest that such substances be legalized and regulated by government agency distribution centers--much like some states regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages. In this case, however, these centers would be managed by professional social workers, guidance counselors, psychologists and physicians. Potential drug users would be required to undergo a series of interviews with these professionals. If undeterred from such usage, they would have to sign a legal form that clearly indicated their understanding of personal risk in their future lives as drug users, with a no-fault clause for government agencies. Then the drugs would be dispensed.
Libertarians may not like that one. The debate rolls on and I'm pretty sure it's going to take us to a better place than where we are now.
7:04:57 AM 
|
