26 11 10 - 06:51I wonder how much money two houses and enough labor to quietly dig a half-mile tunnel cost?
U.S. authorities say they have discovered another extensive drug tunnel that stretches from a home in Tijuana, Mexico, to San Diego, California.
The half-mile tunnel, discovered Thursday morning in a warehouse in the Otay Mesa area of San Diego, is close to a similar one federal agents found earlier this month, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency said. - CNN
The drug war can be won only if we stop going for the pushers. For them, the situation is infinite: money exists if they just quit their day jobs and go for it.
If we go after the users, on the other hand, we raise the cost of drugs not monetarily but in the sense of "I might spend six months in sodomy camp, so this joint isn't worth it."
Having seen most of my generation obliterate themselves on drugs, I think the War on Some Drugs (WoSD) is a good thing. 99% of the people out there cannot handle drugs. Over a decade, almost 100% cannot. It's too much of a distraction from life: either you live life to win, or you compensate with drug use.
I believe that in the future we'll see a rise of "contract cities" that make a simple trade. In response to your signing away your rights to alcohol, drugs and possibly nicotine, they provide a better service at a lower rate. It's like Costco or Sam's club requiring you to buy a membership card. You give up anonymity and "I can do anything I want!" in exchange for a better product.
There may be other rules, too, like no cars in the front yard, lawns always maintained, etc. Unlike current HOAs, which enforce rules limply on neighborhoods, this would be a binding contract relating to your ability to live in the community. You break it, and they throw you out.
This would prevent all of the blight that turns our suburbs into ghettos and our inner cities into wastelands. The first screwups get thrown out, so their friends don't come, and other people don't relax their own standards.
Such cities might even have rules like "no SUVs" or that you can only produce one huge bag of trash per week. Again, for trading off your right to do whatever you want, and forcing yourself to behave like a reasonable person, you get lowered cost. And of course: smarter people around you, lowered crime, and no blight.
The only people this would appeal to are the upwardly-mobile, entrenched (multiple generations) middle classes. For everyone else, it seems like a real imposition. "No glass of wine with dinner? You fascist!" -- but it's not just about you, dear heart, and your glass of wine. It's about the effect of alcohol on a community. And even if YOUR glass of wine is OK, it's the one that's OK out of 100 -- the other 99 contribute to bad things, so we don't want them in our community.
I bet that community would prosper. Would it be boring? Only if the only way you can have fun is to get ragingly intoxicated, which so far hasn't worked for six generations of American intellectuals. In fact, it has done nothing but allow them to be pointlessly brilliant at their day jobs, having drunk themselves into a pleasant haze the night before.
Most Americans will squeal and yell about the very idea that someone might restrain THEIR right to something on the basis that the community as a whole cannot handle it. But the community affects them, even if they're too dumb to notice how, so you make rules for the community. It's not personal. (Hint: recognizing this fact about the universe is maturity itself.)
If you want to win the drug war, stop looking at it from the "saving lives" and "putting away bad guys" perspective. Instead, be honest: you want a community where drug use and its social consequences are not an issue, so you want to remove drug users. This starts by putting them in prison, and ends with you sequestering them and others with criminal records to the outskirts of society.
Will you spend time enforcing this in Humboldt, California? Hell no... you need an escape valve where people can go to get high if they're the 1% who've decided they're going to shape their lives around this drug, and don't mind re-arranging everything else in their lives to do this. American policy regarding marijuana always was this way, for the record.
They busted in the cities, not the countryside, at least until 1937 when they decided that marijuana, the counterculture and Communism occurred more commonly together than not. They were right because impaired judgment underlies all three. Impaired judgment was a violation of their community standard.
If we look at drugs and other social programs through the filter of community standards, the question becomes easy: gay marriage? not here, go to gay-friendly place. Drugs? Not here. Rusting cars and refrigerators on lawns? Pollution? Not here. And we'll bust you, not the dealer, because YOU made the bad choice. Then the dealer goes back to his day job, and we bust him for something else.
All of human endeavors, politically, consists in creating justice: good for the good, bad for the bad. The bad of course always lie, while the good never do, so there's a layer of complexity. But when a society is healthy, it has no problem blaming the user, removing the user, and then going on about its merry way without much drama.