Two of my most respected colleagues,  Mark Bennett and Jon Katz, have argued strenuously to end the war on drugs and prostitution, respectively.  Their arguments are persuasive and well-conceived.  Both know that they are crying in the dark.  It’s not going to happen.

Legalization of drugs was the most controversial stance of the National Review, Bill Buckley’s mouthpiece.  In 1996, he wrote:

Things being as they are, and people as they are, there is no way to prevent somebody, somewhere, from concluding that “NATIONAL REVIEW favors drugs.” We don’t; we deplore their use; we urge the stiffest feasible sentences against anyone convicted of selling a drug to a minor. But that said, it is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far.

There is nothing novel, nor truly controversial, in the rational for legalizing certain crimes.  The “War on …” cliché remains a vibrant part of the politicians’ lexicon, it remaining as effective today as it has always been.  Sure, it was a dishonest theft from the War on Poverty, to provide the sword to the shield of LBJ’s Great Society.  But a catchy phrase can’t be kept under raps.

For reasons unclear, people just refuse to connect the cost of programs based upon visceral disgust and self-righteousness to the benefits obtained.  Society (meaning the media and the politicians) ignore the former and harp on the latter.  Perhaps it’s our Puritan roots.  Perhaps it’s just easier not to think too hard.

As with our current economy enjoying devaluation of the dollars as massive deficits build to fight a war for some vague notion of unwanted “freedom” in Iraq, one might think this is an opportune point in time to revisit the cost/benefit analysis of our endless and costly wars.  Maybe it is, but someone has to champion the cause.  As much as I admire Mark and Jon for their bold positions, they are unlikely to have sufficiently high profiles to get this on the public agenda.  I suffer from the same problem.  Even though I think all presidential candidates should keep me in the loop at all times, they never seem to call.

I believe that our nation’s failure to have a thoughtful discussion about these issues goes back to the anti-intellectualism and elevation of “common sense” above all.  As we continue to promote mindless acceptance of commonly held beliefs because it is so much easier than thinking (“I hate thinking. It hurts.”), we are stymied in freeing up the tens of billions of dollars being flushed down the toilet of complacency and perhaps even making headway in dealing with some long-term societal problems.

There’s no need for me to restate the rationale behind decriminalizing/legalizing certain crimes, as others have already done so and I have nothing to add.  But as  Grits added by  a comment to  Doug Berman’s post about the things to consider when pondering the legalization of prostitution, even the academics are burdened by an intrinsic bias that starts the discussion with a straw man argument for the purpose of guaranteeing political correctness at the expense of meaningful debate.

We could turn around our economy, substantially reduce crime, provide help to those in need and reduce the massive “war-machine” surge to win the war du jour.  But that would require a massive paradigm shift led by a brilliant, charismatic leader.  Like I said, it’s not happening.