Dean, is isn't about economics. It's about public morality.

More or less. :)

Most people aren't emotionally ready to accept that using drugs isn't inherently evil. This, of course, is a relative statement. Anyone who messes with (say) crack or heroin is a friggin' idiot, but that isn't morality, it's practicality.

It's too easy to think "snorts coke: stupid junkie", or "smokes weed: stupid stoner". But you can make that claim for "drinks whiskey: stupid alky" as well. The difference is that beer, wine, and liquor all have a long history of use in Western civilization, while things like marijuana or cocaine do not.

A stronger case can be made that the public is weak on history and politics. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit alcohol in the US. Why should it not be the same for drugs?

Somehow, that point is never used in a court case...

Understanding basic economics should tell us that despite massive increases in funding, drugs are more easily available than ever. Which is what lower street prices translate to.

If people really got that, they'd be more likely to think about whether what we're doing makes any sense, and more likely to wonder if there aren't better ways of dealing with it.

Does anybody believe it is time to either get extremely tough on drug traffickers? Maybe it's time to either debate implementing the death penalty for drug traffickers or just give up the war on drugs.

I continue to believe that the war on (some) drugs is a failed experiment. It's time to find other, more effective ways of dealing with the problem.

Kevin, are you not aware that major league drug dealers are already in the habit of dropping dimes on their underlings to avoid jail time?