Okay, Ray, you forced me to say what I didn’t want to say. Our war on drugs has had some devastating consequences. It’s largely responsible for our gun violence (and a lot of other non-drug crime), our high rate if incarceration, corruption, devastation of other countries (such as Mexico), and general disrespect for the law. After a generation of the drug war, however, drugs are cheaper and more plentiful than ever. And, we’ve spent trillions of dollars for this outcome, with no end in sight.
Ending the war on drugs is such a contentious issue that I didn’t want to add fuel to the fire of the gun control debate, but I don’t believe that we can ever solve our gun violence problem as long as our war on drugs continues.
Hi Dean,
You are correct, is is demonstrably not the way to handle the issues.
And I've been holding back my comments because it is very hard to convince people of concepts that they have little recognition with, not you, but rather the general public. However, how long does it take to recognize a pattern?
The underlying problem is a cultural one, and that's a hard one to change!
The US (legal) system is quite good at setting boundaries and limitations, and (huge) penalties, but the root cause of the issues is not addressed adequately, so the problems do not go away. The 'solutions' used, are symptomatic reactions, not etiological cures. That is a very obvious difference with most other countries that use a more pragmatical approach, addressing the root cause.
Stricter penalties do not reduce crime. The US system is the living proof of that, look at the growing number of the prison populations. For instance the death penalty doesn't prevent individuals to do what they do, because many of them have mental issues and suffer from a reduced sense of empathy. Others just have inadequate legal support, and are killed unjustly anyway in the name of the people.
Long term imprisonment (getting them off the street) creates a false sense of security, because when they come back they're better criminals than before, and with even less of a prospect of making something of their lives. Besides it's a very costly proposition having to house and feed an increasing number of people, especially when it doesn't really solve anything. It's a symptomatic reaction, as usual, not a solution.
More guns does not improve safety, how many times needs that to be proven. How many firearms does a person need to even 'feel' safer anyway? And why does an individual need a semi-automatic assault weapon, or a clip that holds huge numbers of rounds, in the first place? Ludicrous, and the numbers prove it. Guns are a symptomatic reaction, not a solution.
Drinking alcohol in public spaces is prohibited, but I've seen plenty people drinking out of a brown paper bag, so that prohibition doesn't prevent abuse, because it's a symptomatic reaction, not a solution.
Prostitution is not allowed, but that just reminds me of of a decrete by the former president of Uganda, Idi Amin, who declare unemployment illegal. It's a symptomatic reaction, not a solution.
The US system is quite good at setting boundaries and limitations, and penalties, but the root cause of the issues is not addressed adequately. For some (cultural) reason people seem to have a problem understanding the difference between symptomatic reactions, and etiological cures. It goes much deeper than just violence. Look at the reaction to fuel shortages. Not reducing the need for oil or coal is a priority, but pumping more oil from environmentally dangerous environments, and using part of the food production potential to produce biofuels. Symptomatic reactions, not etiological cures.
These shooting sprees are the symptom of a larger issue, and it's unlikely that a cure is going to be put in place any time soon. Changing a culture takes time, but one does have to start sometime,
now seems not a bad moment, but I'm not holding my breath.
There are of course also many parties that benefit from that situation, (gun) lobbyists, defense industry, politicians (not touching sensitive issues is easier than addressing them, and better for re-election). Governing by the FUD principle is easier to get things done, even if they are no solution (remember Iraq, WMDs and all lies at a huge (personal and collective) cost to so many Americans and others, good for Halliburton and the defence industry though). Symptomatic reactions ...
How many lives have to be wasted, before people start to understand the real issue ..., and address it at its core.
Cheers,
Bart