Scouring the internet for drug-war-related writing that missed the boat…
In our continuing series of pieces by students we have the rather bizarre waste of space in the Nexus titled Drug Slogan Stinks
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Nice people take drugs.Ã¢â‚¬Â
These are the words that catch my eye on a recent AIDS Vancouver Island poster. I stop to take another glance at this poster; I re-read the slogan, and, because IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not high on drugs, thus making me a jerk, I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t help but think, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Dumbest. Slogan. Ever.Ã¢â‚¬Â [...]
While thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s some truth in saying nice people take drugs, the simple fact is that this statement is too bold and exclusive; it insinuates that only nice people take drugs, which isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t true, and that only mean people are sober.
Apparently English classes are not taught at this particular college.
Next, we have a professional – Vanda Felbab-Brown, a fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institute – writing for the Houston Chronicle: A smarter drug interdiction policy for Mexico
Ramping up of the campaign against Mexico’s drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) without being truly strategic may satisfy some critics, but it will not enhance the necessary development of law enforcement, justice and corrections institutions in Mexico that are needed to make real headway in ending the Mexican drug wars. Counterproductively, non-strategic action will likely further increase the violence and decrease Mexican public support for the effort in the long term. [...]
A key reason for the violence in Mexico is the way interdiction operations have been carried out – focusing the hollowed-out law enforcement and justice sector on high-value targets, such as top capos, and arresting tens of thousands of foot soldiers, while the middle layer of DTO operators has not been severely affected. [...]
Expanding targeting to the middle layer needs to become a key feature of the strategy in Mexico, along with a steadfast institutional development and social policies to reduce communities’ vulnerability to crime. Reducing violence equally needs to be integrated into strategy – otherwise, public support in Mexico will continue to weaken and temptations by local officials to strike deals with the narcos will increase.
Note how pathetic the arguments start to sound when the author is unable to consider prohibition as a cause of violence. It always boils down to some form of “we just haven’t been strong enough in our prohibition efforts.”
And yet, a third grader could see the gaping hole in this argument. Even if you remove both the top and the middle of the organization, it still leaves a void to be filled as long as prohibition exists, and it will probably be filled violently.
Finally, an idiot.
It’s almost unfair to take pieces from Cliff Kinkaid’s “Accuracy in Media” site, but here’s an AIM Special Report by Michael P. Temoglie: How State Budget Battles Could Mean More Criminals Back on the Streets
On the surface, the budget fight in Wisconsin has involved issues like collective bargaining and pay increases for public employees. What has been largely ignored is that Governor Scott Walker, who is determined to cut spending, wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make significant cuts to the prisons. This has made him a special target for liberal commentators. [...]
In fact, WalkerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s budget would end a Wisconsin program allowing some nonviolent offenders to seek early release from prison, which Republicans had derided as Ã¢â‚¬Å“catch and release.Ã¢â‚¬Â [...]
Walker favors a truth-in-sentencing law that requires prisoners to serve their entire sentence without time taken off for good behavior.
If the liberal unions eventually succeed in Wisconsin and other states and budgets remain out of balance, we can anticipate the liberal left proposing this Ã¢â‚¬Å“cost effectiveÃ¢â‚¬Â way of dealing with lawbreakersÃ¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“prison reformÃ¢â‚¬Â through releasing criminals back on the streets. This is the fall-back position when liberals are pressed for budget cuts of their own on the state level.
The appeal of Ã¢â‚¬Å“prison reformÃ¢â‚¬Â is such that some conservatives have expressed support for it. Ultimately, however, it means reducing the number of criminals in prison. While some public money would be saved, the cost in lives and injuries carried out by criminals back on the streets would be difficult to estimate. The public needs to be on-guard against a renewed push to open the prison gates in the name of saving public money.
That’s right – it’s a conservative call for big government spending on increased incarceration, because apparently we don’t have enough of that going on here. Even non-violent criminals, once released, will apparently resort to violence. By this logic, once we incarcerate anyone for anything, we should never release them.
More Prisons, Less Crime
Otis said that the answer is readily apparent Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“when you put in jail the people who commit crime you get less crime. Conversely, when you start releasing them, you will get more crime.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Of course, this isn’t true – particularly when you factor in the drug war. With the drug war, when you put people in jail you get more crime. Arresting one drug dealer creates a job opening and now you have two.
The whole piece is a rambling 6,000 word nonsensical diatribe with footnotes, slamming judges, invoking the demon name of Soros, regularly tossing out the “liberal” word as an epithet, and calling it all a Special Report.