Finally, the Obama Choom Gang story finally breaks through in the one medium the MSM can’t possibly ignore: wacky Taiwanese animation.
Again, the issue isn’t that our 44th President used to regularly get baked out of his gourd, the issue is why the MSM was unwilling to investigate and report such stories in 2008, and the hypocrisy of Obama carrying out a futile War on Drugs and imprisoning people for the same laws he used to habitually break.
(Hat tip: Jim Treacher)
Or, to be more specific, George Will summarizes the same case made in Mark Kleiman, Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken’s Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know. It focuses on the sheer economic idiocy of continuing the War on Drugs:
A $200 transaction can cost society $100,000 for a three-year sentence. And imprisoning large numbers of dealers produces an army of people who, emerging from prison with blighted employment prospects, can only deal drugs. Which is why, although a few years ago Washington, D.C., dealers earned an average of $30 an hour, today they earn less than the federal minimum wage ($7.25).
I oppose the War on Drugs for reasons of general principles (it’s not the purpose of government to save people from themselves), the specific application of constitutional federalism (the Commerce Clause should not apply to the regulation of drugs manufactured and sold within the confines of a single state), and for reasons of budgetary philosophy (making drugs illegal has expanded the size and power of the federal government while increasing the budget deficit; legalizing, regulating and taxing drugs would reduce both the deficit and the harm to individuals and society). Frankly, I’d be for the immediate legalization of methamphetamine tomorrow if it meant we could stop ID-ing people with colds trying to buy Sudafed.
There has been slow but steady progress in the conservative movement for saner drugs laws, from William F. Buckley arguing for the decriminalization of marijuana, to National Review declaring that “The War on Drugs is Lost” in 1996, to Republican Presidential candidates like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson (who, like Paul once did, bolted for a doomed Libertarian Party run) making the same case.
Despite growing sentiment, almost no legislative headway has been made on the issue because there’s no consensus in the Republican Party (or the American people) for that change. When an initiative for the total legalization of marijuana fails in California (though poor wording helped contribute to the defeat), where can it succeed? But the lack of a consensus for legalization is no reason to avoid fighting for saner laws at the state or national level or trimming funding for the DEA.
Another question is how come we never hear anything about legalization from the supposedly pro-freedom Democratic leadership? If Obama, an admitted recreational drug user in his youth, has ever made a speech as President supporting legalization or decriminalization of any drugs, it’s evaded my attention. Indeed, not only does he not support decriminalization, he’s actively hostile to the idea.
George Will thinks more seriously and clearly than Barack Obama on the issue of drug legalization. Then again, the first ten words in the preceding sentence are pretty much true all the time,,,
Taking some time to get back into the post-Memorial Day swing, so here are a few links of interest:
We are all agreed that someone had an interest in sending a picture of Rep. Weiner’s erection to a coed. Even Rep. Weiner agrees on this much—he’s basically told us yeah, that’s my junk. And he’s proud of that. Would I sound very boring if I were to suggest that the person with the means, opportunity, and motive to send Rep. Weiner’s dicpic to the coed was none other than Rep. Weiner himself?
Dwight linked to this after-action report on a two-hour gun-battle between the Mexican Army and members of drug cartel in Nuevo Laredo. (Warning: Includes some graphic images.)
Later, some people pointed out that at least one of the images looked strangely familiar. Some commentators doubted whether such a gun-battle had even taken place at all.
But there are many news bulletins about the battle itself. Also, the vast majority of those photos appear to be from that shootout, many of which are also shown here. (Again, remember that graphic clip warning. We’re talking serious, non-CGI exploded skulls here.) Of course, maybe that set of photos is from another shootout as well, but the photos do seem to be, at the very least, compatible with the (admittedly sketchy) news stories on the event.
On the other hand, those stories of drug gangs taking over ranches on this side of the border appear to be bunk.
I’m not big on linking to The New York Times, and this is the sort of story that Dwight over at Whipped Cream Difficulties covers more than I, but this article reveals some pretty shocking details about the drug war going on in Juarez. Like the fact that Juarez had 250 homicides. Last month.
By contrast, in 2008 (the most recent year I was able to find annual figures for), El Paso proper had 17 murders (plus another two for “other reporting areas,” which I take to mean unincorporated parts of the county). While it’s possible that the drug war across the border has increased that some, it’s fairly shocking to find out that more people are killed in Jaurez in a week than are killed in El Paso in a year. (Indeed going through each of the individual zip codes here, it appears that there have been no homicides so far in El Paso this year.)
Why the vast difference? A few thoughts:
(Note that Reason (for which I’ve penned the occasional piece) covered this same paradox early last year, though I wasn’t aware of their article when I started working on this blog post. I do not agree with their conjecture that illegal immigration actually reduces crime, but pointing out problems with their reasoning would take a longer (and only tangentially related) blog post than I’m interested in penning to reply to a year-old piece.)
Further reading: Articles from The El Paso Times on the situation in Juarez.