Check out this whopper of an opening sentence in the Guardian:
The loudest voices in US drug policy debates call either for enforcing prohibition with ever-increasing ferocity or for giving up altogether by letting corporations legally sell the currently illicit drugs much as they do tobacco and alcohol.
That’s in Towards a smarter drugs policy by Keith Humphreys and Jonathan Caulkins.
I guess they wanted to be like Kevin Sabet and invent their opponents out of whole cloth so they could be “centrists.” That’s apparently the “scientific” way.
Even for those drugs that we’d like to see sold like tobacco and alcohol, how is that “giving up”?
If they meant “giving up on failed prohibition policies” than yes, I’d go along with that, but they seem to be using the “surrender” straw man.
And legalization is far from surrender.
I didn’t even read the rest of the article. When you start with such a whopper, how much value is there likely to be in the rest?