What do you think?
Rate this book
Ending the War on Drugs: A Solution for America
The author, a conservative Republican, examines why America is losing the war on drugs -- and makes a case for controlled legalization.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published July 21, 1998
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 4, 2013
Dirk Chase Eldredge has written a rather common sense indictment of the drug war, and prohibitionist policies in general. As he points out, not only has the drug war been a massive failure in terms of actually ending (or even significantly slowing) drug use and manufacturing; but it has also allowed over-zealous authoritarian types to strip average Americans of their civil liberties.
Overall, I was familiar with most of the arguments in the book. Being a bit older than what I expected, I was pleasantly surprised to see that Eldredge would cite former Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate, Judge Jim Gray, as an inspiration toward his authoring this book. The conservative tone was predictable; and quite honestly, a little boring.
I disagree with Eldredge in his belief that only state governments should have licensed "Drug Stores" after legalization, in that it's not the job of the government, at any level, to operate a business in competition with its citizens. The free market could provide them much more efficiently with less overhead cost--it's a no-brainer to see why entrepreneurs should be relied upon, and not bureaucrats.
Check this out if you're interested in hearing a mainstream conservative argument for drug legalization. If not, don't feel too bad about missing it.
Overall, I was familiar with most of the arguments in the book. Being a bit older than what I expected, I was pleasantly surprised to see that Eldredge would cite former Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate, Judge Jim Gray, as an inspiration toward his authoring this book. The conservative tone was predictable; and quite honestly, a little boring.
I disagree with Eldredge in his belief that only state governments should have licensed "Drug Stores" after legalization, in that it's not the job of the government, at any level, to operate a business in competition with its citizens. The free market could provide them much more efficiently with less overhead cost--it's a no-brainer to see why entrepreneurs should be relied upon, and not bureaucrats.
Check this out if you're interested in hearing a mainstream conservative argument for drug legalization. If not, don't feel too bad about missing it.
February 18, 2017
I read this book after I had reluctantly accepted the idea that maybe we should legalize drugs, and I was looking to this book for actual evidence of this. I was very disappointed. I took notes during the reading of this book, too many to summarize here. But essentially, the author seemed to perform some sound reasoning to show why the war on drugs isn't working, but then eschew that same reasoning when promoting his idea for a system of legalized drugs. The result is that, in trying to eliminate the unintended consequences (strong cartels) that occurred with the drug war, the authors proposals is opening the door to a whole slew of other problems.
I will say that the author is effective at writing about the problems with the drug war. Stephen Levitt (of Freakonomics fame) thinks that identifying the problems with the drug war (long prison times, strong cartels, etc) is different than evaluating the effectiveness of the prohibition of drugs on number of drug users. Levitt contends that the drug war has reduced the number of drug users, and the author of this book says thats not true.
The author feels that people are going to use drugs regardless. This flies in the face of the idea that people react to incentives or penalties, but this is the authors assumption so that he can reason that drug use will not increase significantly if its legalized.
The author also contends that the government/states selling drugs will drive the cartels out of business but that is also ignoring much of the facts that eldredge layed out in the book. He mentions the extremely high margins the cartels get for drugs, with their chief cost being the cost to smuggle it in. Since Eldredge's plan calls for eliminating the aggressive fight with the cartels, this smuggling cost goes away. With that being said, cartels do not pay taxes, uses cheap labor, and do not have to have there product pass rigorous inspection, so cartels cannot be undercut. Elredge never takes this into consideration though and assumes that the cartels product is a fixed price.
Theres many more instances of of issues like this.
Eldredge has his points and his emphasis on providing drug users with counseling and access to treatment programs should be given much consideration, but I am very perplexed how his "plan" can have such holes. If they are not true holes, then why aren't they explained.
I just expected an intellectual take on the matter and I get this.
I will say that the author is effective at writing about the problems with the drug war. Stephen Levitt (of Freakonomics fame) thinks that identifying the problems with the drug war (long prison times, strong cartels, etc) is different than evaluating the effectiveness of the prohibition of drugs on number of drug users. Levitt contends that the drug war has reduced the number of drug users, and the author of this book says thats not true.
The author feels that people are going to use drugs regardless. This flies in the face of the idea that people react to incentives or penalties, but this is the authors assumption so that he can reason that drug use will not increase significantly if its legalized.
The author also contends that the government/states selling drugs will drive the cartels out of business but that is also ignoring much of the facts that eldredge layed out in the book. He mentions the extremely high margins the cartels get for drugs, with their chief cost being the cost to smuggle it in. Since Eldredge's plan calls for eliminating the aggressive fight with the cartels, this smuggling cost goes away. With that being said, cartels do not pay taxes, uses cheap labor, and do not have to have there product pass rigorous inspection, so cartels cannot be undercut. Elredge never takes this into consideration though and assumes that the cartels product is a fixed price.
Theres many more instances of of issues like this.
Eldredge has his points and his emphasis on providing drug users with counseling and access to treatment programs should be given much consideration, but I am very perplexed how his "plan" can have such holes. If they are not true holes, then why aren't they explained.
I just expected an intellectual take on the matter and I get this.
June 14, 2018
Huh - it's weird to be on the same side as someone I disagree with so much. Not unwelcome in this case, but weird.
Yeah, I've got a lot of points of divergence with Dirk here, but, hell, if this view gets you on the right side of things (pun intended) fine, it's well intentioned and good policy suggestion. More to the point, it's humane.
.
Yeah, I've got a lot of points of divergence with Dirk here, but, hell, if this view gets you on the right side of things (pun intended) fine, it's well intentioned and good policy suggestion. More to the point, it's humane.
.
Read
September 20, 2017363.4 ELD
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews