I wonder what makes Jim Anderton think that his War on Drugs will be any more effective than the American 1990's War on Drugs - or any more effective than American Prohibition of Alcohol, or any less disastrous than the American War on Terror?
Someone send this guy on a clue-finding mission to Amsterdam!
I'm all for a war on drugs, using policy based on the evidence that everyone from high court judges to addiction experts agree on: the main factor aggravating the effect of drug abuse on society is prohibition.
Posted by: suraya at July 4, 2007 05:36 AMyep, absolutely...
it also seems silly to declare 'war' on an object or a behaviour - I mean, how do you know when you've won?
Terrorism is unlikely to sign an armistice, and even if all the 'illegal' drugs magically disappeared tomorrow, people would still abuse prescription medications, or poppy seeds, or glue, or anything else that helps them escape.