3 ms·
The only thing novel here is that it's The Economist saying it. But that is in fact huge. This is practically The Establishment saying it.
by pg 18y ago
The only thing novel here is that it's The Economist saying it.
But that is in fact huge. This is practically The Establishment saying it.
- lliiffee 18y agoOn the other hand, The Economist has been against drug prohibition for a long time. (If I recall correctly) So it is questionable how novel this really is.
- tdonia 18y agothey've stated this position before: "Hooked on just saying no" (1989) http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13251312 http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story... to get a better sense of where they're reacting to the full briefing from this weekend's issue is worth a read: "On the trail of the traffickers" http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234157 http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234157 "Sniffy customers" http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234124 http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234124 "A toker's guide" http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234134 http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234134 "In America, lessons learned" http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234144 http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234144 and overall their perspective is well summarized by the cover art: http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayCover.cfm?url=/images/20090307/20090307issuecovUS400.jpg http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayCover.cfm?url=/...