A smart reporter, for example, might ask why we have meth in the first place. Could it be because more traditional amphetamines and narcotics are harder to get, thanks in large part to the Drug War? He might ask Drug War opponents if they feel the meth scare is as potent and widespread as media reports and drug warriors suggest. He doesn’t have to endorse these ideas. But he ought to at least give them some space.

Yesterday’s New York Times offers a great example on the meth front. Cops in Georgia arrested 49 convenience store clerks for the “crime” of selling cold medicine, matches, and camping fuel to undercover cops. Apparently in Georgia, it’s a felony to sell meth-making items to someone who hints at the store that he might be using them to make meth.

Problem is, most of the clerks barely speak English. Nearly all of them are Indian — 32 have the name “Patel.” So when cops starting throwing out drug slang while purchasing the supplies, most of the clerks hadn’t the slightest idea what they were talking about. They each face up to 20 years in prison.

The story is an outrage on about five different levels.

I think that’s a poor way of framing the question. It would be like asking an opponent of alcohol prohibition in, say, 1927 a question like, “would you even legalize bathtub gin, which is dangerously potent, and sometimes lethal?”

It’s not a fair question. Were it not for the Drug War, we wouldn’t have meth. Were it not for Prohibition, we’d never have had people drinking wood alcohol or bathtub gin. Both were created by prohibition. Both would soon go away if we adopted more sensible policies.

This entry was posted on Friday, August 5th, 2005 at 9:47 am by Radley Balko and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.