Harper's Drug War and the Logic of the Left
Canadian Prime Minister recently announced a new Conservative Party platform that would see illicit drug pushers severely punished while the addict would be offered help to get off the habit. Quite naturally, this announcement has caused a big debate.
This morning, I was listening to the John Gormley show while he was taking calls from listeners about this policy and the problem it is designed to address. The huge profits that the drug trade engenders for drug lords and pushers was part of the debate. The idea that drugs should be legalized and regulated and the presumption that that would solve the problem is nearly always advanced in this argument, and sure enough, more than one caller raised this point.
So many people believe this, it's mind boggling. Has the control and regulation of alcohol stopped the bootleg business? Of course not. It certainly hasn't stopped people from abusing alcohol in the first place and all the societal costs of that. Why would regulation of cocaine or meth ampthetamines be any different?
A corollary argument suggests that addicts should go to their doctors for their fix, and this would destroy the profit motive that drives the pushers and the drug lords. This is also a ludicrous argument. No doctor in his right mind, unless he is thoroughly corrupt, is going to prescribe an illicit drug to someone who is not yet addicted, so where are the not-yet-addicts going to get the stuff that turns them into full-blown addicts? There will still be an illicit drug trade and profits to be made, folks.
So, now that we know that we are not going to be able to prevent the curse of drug addition, are we going to have a drive by window sort of service in which doctors are handing out fixes to addicts who are dying for their drug at 3:00 am on a Saturday night? Will we have a cadre of medical professionals doing the grave yard shift to keep addicts high? How many want to do this kind of work and for what sort of pay? We have a hard enough time attracting and keeping doctors as it is.
This whole scenario is macabre in the extreme.
Hmmm.
This morning, I was listening to the John Gormley show while he was taking calls from listeners about this policy and the problem it is designed to address. The huge profits that the drug trade engenders for drug lords and pushers was part of the debate. The idea that drugs should be legalized and regulated and the presumption that that would solve the problem is nearly always advanced in this argument, and sure enough, more than one caller raised this point.
So many people believe this, it's mind boggling. Has the control and regulation of alcohol stopped the bootleg business? Of course not. It certainly hasn't stopped people from abusing alcohol in the first place and all the societal costs of that. Why would regulation of cocaine or meth ampthetamines be any different?
A corollary argument suggests that addicts should go to their doctors for their fix, and this would destroy the profit motive that drives the pushers and the drug lords. This is also a ludicrous argument. No doctor in his right mind, unless he is thoroughly corrupt, is going to prescribe an illicit drug to someone who is not yet addicted, so where are the not-yet-addicts going to get the stuff that turns them into full-blown addicts? There will still be an illicit drug trade and profits to be made, folks.
So, now that we know that we are not going to be able to prevent the curse of drug addition, are we going to have a drive by window sort of service in which doctors are handing out fixes to addicts who are dying for their drug at 3:00 am on a Saturday night? Will we have a cadre of medical professionals doing the grave yard shift to keep addicts high? How many want to do this kind of work and for what sort of pay? We have a hard enough time attracting and keeping doctors as it is.
This whole scenario is macabre in the extreme.
Hmmm.
Labels: idiocy, leftards, victimology
posted by Louise at 6:10 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home