Bert Dirschell
Centertown
Dear Editor:
Why do we constantly need more nanny-state government programs? What is wrong with the original concept that the primary purpose of government is to protect us from external forces, not from ourselves?
I am proud, and incredibly thankful, to have been born in the U.S. Past generations have built the U.S. into the best country in the world. We aren't perfect, but when compared to other nations we fare well. One of our blemishes is our government's refusal to rationally address the problem of drugs.
A recent NT headline noted "100 years ago, America went dry." 100 years ago the federal government realized that it needed a constitutional amendment to give it the power to ban the sale of alcohol; without an amendment the power to do so rested with the state and local government. Prohibition was one of many boondoggles caused by an interventionist federal government. The unworkable, nanny state amendment was finally overturned. Is it possible for us to learn from it? (Can anyone site the section of the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate drugs? No one can because it doesn't exist.)
We should be ashamed about the drug violence in Mexico, violence that is a direct result of the demand for illegal drugs in the U.S. There is tremendous demand in the U.S. for illegal drugs and incredible profits to be made. It is nothing short of lunacy to think that the supply of such a profitable, high-demand product can be stopped. (Government can't even keep drugs out of prisons and yet politicians pretend that they can stop them from being supplied to the general public.)
One obvious solution is to legalize, regulate and tax drugs, in a manner similar to alcohol. The other is to dry up demand by making the penalty for use severe enough that people quit buying them. (first offense - one year probation; second offense - one year incarceration, no probation; third offense - 10 years, no probation; fourth offense - life) The cost of incarcerating users would be borne by income from prison industry (only politicians could come up a scheme that forces taxpayers to bear the cost of incarcerating able-bodied criminals).