Does the debate about drug policy not bear similarity to the debate about gun control? Both debates center around whether resources should be directed towards treatment of people or control of things (drugs, guns). It seems to me in both instances that the undesirable outcomes (drug abuse, gun violence) are symptoms of societal ill, not causes. To treat symptoms is defensive. That means to achieve success, ALL negative possibilities must be precluded. This is extremely expensive and in reality, impossible. An offensive strategy that targets root causes of these ills would seem far more likely to produce sustained success and efficiently allocate resources.
Responses
Does the debate about drug policy not bear similarity to the debate about gun control? Both debates center around whether resources should be directed towards treatment of people or control of things (drugs, guns). It seems to me in both instances that the undesirable outcomes (drug abuse, gun violence) are symptoms of societal ill, not causes. To treat symptoms is defensive. That means to achieve success, ALL negative possibilities must be precluded. This is extremely expensive and in reality, impossible. An offensive strategy that targets root causes of these ills would seem far more likely to produce sustained success and efficiently allocate resources.