評(píng)論
打印
By redefining drug use as legal, it eliminates all drug-related crimes. Now, legalization does solve the drug enforcement problem. If drugs are legal, there are no profits to be made from smuggling, no mafias and drug cartels to be enriched by the trade. No one goes to jail. We save billions in law enforcement and reduce corruption to boot.
通過(guò)將使用毒品重新界定為合法行為，所有涉毒案件也不再涉及犯罪。這樣一來(lái)，毒品合法化的確能夠解決緝毒問(wèn)題。假如毒品合法，那么走私毒品就無(wú)利可圖，黑社會(huì)和販毒集團(tuán)也就無(wú)法由此致富了，也就沒(méi)有人為此而坐牢。我們?cè)趫?zhí)法方面可以節(jié)省數(shù)十億美元，而且還能減少腐敗滋生。
What legalizers minimize is the catastrophic effect that legalization would have on public health, an effect that would far outweigh the savings in law enforcement.
主張使毒品合法化的人們低估了毒品合法化給公眾健康帶來(lái)的災(zāi)難性后果，而這種后果所產(chǎn)生的代價(jià)將大大超過(guò)在執(zhí)法過(guò)程中節(jié)省的資金。
Well, you ask, if alcohol is now legal, what is the logic of prohibiting cocaine and heroin? No logic, just history. Alcohol use is so ancient and so universal a practice that it cannot be repealed. The question is not: Which is worse, alcohol or cocaine? The question is: Which is worse, alcohol alone or alcohol plus cocaine and heroin? Alcohol is here to stay. To legalize other drugs is to declare that the rest of the pharmacy is here to stay too.
那么，你會(huì)問(wèn)，既然現(xiàn)在酒是合法的，禁止可卡因和海洛因的邏輯何在？沒(méi)有邏輯，只是歷史原因。喝酒是一種古老而普遍的做法，不能禁止。問(wèn)題并不是酒與海洛因哪個(gè)更具有危害性，而是單純的酒，相對(duì)于酒加上可卡因和海洛因，哪種情況危害更大。酒現(xiàn)在是合法的，而其他毒品合法化就意味著制毒業(yè)都合乎法律。
Do we really want the additional and permanent burden of the other intoxicants, some of which are infinitely more addictive than alcohol? Since 1987 there have been 37 railroad accidents involving drug use. With cocaine and heroin readily available, additional transportation deaths alone would dwarf the current number of drug-related deaths.
除了酒，我們真的還要承受其他麻醉品帶來(lái)額外、永久的負(fù)擔(dān)嗎？其中的一些麻醉品比酒精更加容易使人成瘸。1987年以來(lái)已經(jīng)發(fā)生了37起與使用毒品有關(guān)的鐵路交通事故。如果可卡因和海洛因唾手可得，那么單是由此增加的交通事故造成的死亡人數(shù)就會(huì)使現(xiàn)在與毒品有關(guān)的死亡數(shù)字相形見(jiàn)絀。
