The Economist says "Make it Legal"

(First found at Boing Boing)

The Economist is saying:

Next week ministers from around the world gather in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. Like first-world-war generals, many will claim that all that is needed is more of the same. In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.

“Least bad” does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain.

Here's why I doubt we'll be dropping this particular prohibition...

Look at the Kennedy legacy.

A single generation after prohibition and we had a political dynasty that was/is, arguably, the most powerful in America ever, but certainly within the 20th century.

And it was all built on the backbones of a fortune made in illegal alcohol sales.

The Kennedys made their money during prohibition; and when prohibition ended, they couldn't keep making money running booze. That's when they moved into politics.

BoingBoing seems to agree, to some respect:

But it won't happen, because the criminals don't want it, law enforcement doesn't want it, and the prison systems ... don't want it.