Taking on John Hawkins’ Defense of the Drug War , which asserts that drug usage is best restrained by keeping drugs illegal, that snarky blogger known as Xrlq writes:

Banning drugs almost certainly causes some potential users to go or stay straight. It also causes a hell of a lot of violent crime, and probably causes its share of police corruption as well. The question is how much crime and how much of our civil liberties we are willing to give up, in exchange for how much of a reduction of drug abuse. If you think the trade-off is a good one, the War on Some Drugs is already being won. If you think it’s a bad trade-off, it’s not, and query whether it ever can be.

It’s an excellent piece. Read the rest.

As for me? Well, I maintain that the Nanny State originates from laws such as prohibition — and now its modern-day counterparts dealing with drugs as well as cigarettes, transfats and sugary snacks in elementary schools. Isn’t it odd, however, that conservatives tend to be the ones rallying against that Nanny State while, historically, they were actually its creators?

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!