Can We Please End the Drug War Now
Recently small town Grantville, Georgia police chief Doug Jordan flew out to meet with our very own Sheriff Joe.
Following their meeting, Jordan expressed his hopes to establish Grantville’s own drug team. He also planned to have some of his officers travel to Arizona for training.
Seriously? A dedicated drug team? Grantville has a population of 3,096 in 2011. Here it is in all its metropolitan glory:
Next, they will be wanting a tank.
HenryBowman419:
They well get one (a tank, or equivalent). Then, having such a machine, they'll just have to use it,, even if circumstances do not call for such. Sort of like calling in a SWAT team to deal with a crazed 107-year old man (and, of course, killing the SOB).
September 11, 2013, 3:18 pmDoug Katz:
I seriously hope Joey was borrowing that 50 cal from the national guard. Why in gods name would a police force need such firepower!!!
September 11, 2013, 4:39 pmmlhouse:
While I am not sure what the definition of a dedicated drug team is, but the fact is that drugs, particularly crystal meth, are a major problem in rural and small town America.
September 11, 2013, 4:48 pmLTMG:
What the hell, might as well get a SCUBA search team too. It will be almost as useful as an armored truck.
September 11, 2013, 6:13 pmobloodyhell:
Hey, every Sheriff needs a tank. Might come in handy when the FBI sends someone to take the town's guns...
September 11, 2013, 7:08 pmBenjamin Cole:
If the citizens of Grantville paid for the trip...they should have a recall election. A phone call wouldn't do? Reading some online materials? And yes, if you need a dedicated team in a town of 3,000...jeez, if I was police chief of Grantville, I would know every citizen by name.
September 11, 2013, 11:30 pmslocum:
This is really not funny...but why am I picturing Barney Fife in SWAT gear driving a tank through Mayberry?
September 12, 2013, 4:27 amReformed Republican:
Even in the desert, I would prefer my police department to have a SCUBA search team than a tank. A SCUBA search team has much less potential to harm.
September 12, 2013, 5:45 ammarque2:
Could be useful for investigating vernal pools!
September 12, 2013, 6:18 ammarque2:
Well the 107 year at least had a gun. What about the swat team to apprehend and kill Giggles? Now there was a threat to society averted by quick policing action!
Wisconsin is now safe from the threat of terroristic fawns.
September 12, 2013, 6:23 amSettin it str8:
I completely agree, mlhouse. i grew up in a rural community at the intersection of corn/beans. Meth is about the only commerce in this area. It's not the simple "pot doesn't hurt anyone" argument about the war on drugs. There are many which result in the destruction of families, neglection/mistreatment of children, etc.
September 12, 2013, 7:37 amPerhaps they could have chosen a different model for their task force, but the need in small towns - perhaps in conjunction with county/state officials - is definitely real.
BobSykes:
The drug war cannot be ended because there will always be some drug that is banned or some sort of production, distribution or sales restriction that leaves an opening for criminal activity. And as long as there is criminal activity idiot sherifs will make up excuses to use their toys.
Europe's experiment with legalizing drugs and prostitution is instructive. The criminals coexist with the legals.
September 12, 2013, 8:49 ammlhouse:
The drug issue is the major bane of libertarian thought. THe concept of legalizing drugs is moronic for just the issues you identify. I can perhaps accept the legalization of "pot" but I do not agree that it doesn't hurt anyone and my position would depend on the public finance issues i.e. high tax rates put on the product. But even that is a loser's game in my opinion.
If you look at the drug issue legalization is not a clear cut issue. THere are three possible outcomes:
1. Because of excise taxes the price of drugs increases. THere is a supply and demand argument that this would decrease drug addiction, but the problem with excise taxes is that when they are set higher than what the "market" sets the products will be bought in the black market. Since there already exists a distribution stream for illegal drugs at a lower price the black market would just supply the "lower" cost drugs to keep the addiction rate constant. The only question would then be since there are now TAX REVENUES on the line would the government finally figure out a way to enforce drug laws???????????
2. The street price of drugs remains constant. But the most likely outcome of this step would be to increase addiction because demand curve would shift upwards because the "risk costs" of the buyer are now eliminated.
3. The street price of drugs is reduced. THis would be a disaster. Drug addiction would soar and the social costs would likewise soar.
Even if you can argue that the problems will not get any worse, legalizing drugs puts each and every citizen in a morally reprehensible position. By "benefiting" from the tax revenues we have thus replaced the drug kingpins and pushers as the people who benefit from the addictions and misery of other people.
September 12, 2013, 9:14 amMatthew Slyfield:
I don't dispute that there are many real harms to drug abuse. However, the drug war as it exists now is the ultimate cure worse than the disease.
September 12, 2013, 12:36 pm