simplulo

Correct.

I know what you mean, but this is actually as strong as a protection in Montana (and probably elsewhere) gets. The burden is high. Montana's RTC bill had strong and competent libertarian input.

Holy crap! I'd say that there is probably a job for you in policing or intelligence, but it will probably be replaced by AI.

BTW, last night I watched the 1953 film "From Here to Eternity", and had no idea it was starring Burt Lancaster.

We ought to start a movement and push for a law requiring everyone to have their forehead barcoded. ;)

I didn't know that was a thing. ;)

I'm the author of the posted article, and I am currently reading Brian Sanderson's latest Stormlight novel and suffering from character/name overload (doesn't help that I read the previous book years ago).

I also spent many years in Russia, where I noticed that they have few names (just a dozen or so common ones for each sex) but a gazillion variations, depending on context (e.g. family, friends, work). My theory is that under Stalin, you didn't want to stick out, and a boring name like Natalya Ivanovna was less likely to be noticed and remembered. Your trusted friends could have some unique nickname for you, like Natulya. But I never read War & Peace--it sounds like the naming practice predates Stalin. My Russian daughter is currently reading the book, so I'll have to discuss it with her.

Crikey, you're right. Thanks for that.

Police commit 8% of US homicides. The problem is clearly not the police, or the Drug War, but guns. Well, maybe the police could use some more sensitivity training.

Ditto about Excedrin––I'm like the Johnny Appleseed of Excedrin in Europe. Most migraine sufferers here seem unaware of the treatment options, and often are unaware even that their headaches are migraines. Just suffering alone in silence. Being American, I'll happily discuss my health problems with strangers. I disagree with your doctor about Excedrin rebound headaches--most sufferers (in my experience) don't have migraines very often, and would notice the rebound pattern. Many if not most are drinking coffee anyway. Me, I have an espresso a day, but supposedly espresso (generally arabica) contains less caffeine than drip coffee (often robusta). I attribute its positive effects to phytochemicals other than caffeine.

About sugar, I tend to agree. My mornings greatly improved after I cut out "part of a healthy breakfast" orange juice.

That's a nice start, but many members of a drug gang might not ever touch drugs, at least if I can believe The Wire's portrayal of drug organizations and their division of labor. I am also skeptical of the correlation between arrests for drug offenses (where there is no victim to complain) and violent crimes.

Completely missing from the article is an estimate of the coupling between drug and non-drug crime (e.g. prostitution or robbery to finance a drug habit, violent conflict vertically and horizontally along the supply chain, tax avoidance, and corruption of police and other government employees). There are also tertiary effects, like drug gangs engaging in additional illegal activities supported by the core competencies of trafficking and violence. This merits an additional study.

Three quarters of US murder victims are male, and more than half are black. The same goes for US murderers, to which we can add that more than half are under 30, and more than half use handguns (not an inexpensive tool). I suspect that the circumstances more often involve drug gangs than domestic violence. It seems unlikely to me that Drug Prohibition could be such a big factor in murder but not in other crime or incarceration.

The criminals have lots of violent disputes, not just over territory, and the users commit more than just property crime, e.g. robbery. People up and down the supply chain try to rip each other off. It seems that the author did not expend much imagination in looking for prohibition-driven crime.

"Always"? Pretty sweeping, categorical assertion. Voters' politics is based on interest, identity, and values. The latter two often run counter to the first (e.g. poor whites in the Republican Party, blacks in the Democratic Party). Blacks suffer disproportionately from Drug Prohibition, but many are religious and culturally conservative, and would like to see the death penalty for drug dealers (assuming the police could be trusted). They blame the drugs, not Drug Prohibition.

Lots of your anti-prohibition activists are wealthy progressives and libertarians who, like me, like David Simon, have no personal stake in the outcome.