評論
打印
"Prof. James Q. Wilson tells us that during the years in which heroin could be legally prescribed by doctors in Britain, the number of addicts increased forty-fold," wrote drug czar William Bennett in the Sept. 19 Wall Street Journal in a rebuttal to an open letter economist Friedman had directed to him in an earlier issue. "And after the repeal of Prohibition—an analogy favored but misunderstood by legalization advocates—consumption of alcohol soared by 350 percent."
抗毒主將威廉·本內特為了反駁《華爾街日報》早些時候刊登的經濟學家弗里德曼給他的一封公開信，在9月19日出版的該報上寫道，詹姆斯·Q·威爾遜教授告訴我們，在英國，醫生可以合法使用海洛因的年代，吸毒者的數量增加了40倍。廢除禁酒令之后——主張毒品合法化的人喜歡將禁毒與其作類比，但這其中有誤解——實際上酒的消費量猛增了350%。”
Unfortunately, Bennett's approach also misses the boat. Drugs are a symptom of deeper ills in certain segments of our society, particularly the impoverished segments. You can call in all the troops you want and build more jails and drug boot camps, but as long as demand remains, the traffic will find ways to get through. And demand will remain as long as the social ills that feed it remain.
可惜的是，本內特也沒能抓住毒品問題的要害。毒品問題暴露了我們社會某些階層，特別是社會貧困階層存在的深層次弊端。你可以動用你所需要的所有軍隊，修建更多的監獄和戒毒所，但是只要毒品需求仍然存在，毒品交易就會有漏洞可鉆。只要還存在滋生吸毒的社會弊端，對毒品的需求將一直存在。
Bennett is right to say the nation's drug problem is too multifaceted to be destroyed with a "magic bullet." But he is wrong to limit his targets. The proverbial quick fix that legalization would seem to provide is illusory. But so is the slow fix offered by further criminalization.
本內特認為美國毒品問題有許多方面的原因，不可能用一顆“魔彈”就全盤解決，這個觀點是正確的。但他錯就錯在自己限定了目標。討論得沸沸揚揚的毒品合法化似乎是一個快速解決方案，但不切實際，然而懲治毒品交易這種耗時的方法也不是萬全之策。
3.Legalize? No. Deglamorize. Charles Krauthammer
三、讓毒品合法化？不，還不如使其失去迷惑力。查爾斯·克勞薩默
Legalization sounds like a cheap and easy solution. It works instantly.
使毒品合法化聽起來是一種既不費錢又容易實施的解決方法，可以立即生效。
