Perhaps it is ironic that one of Bennett's weaker arguments relates to the Prohibition during the 1920s.
The author claims that, contrary to many existing arguments and evidence, the Prohibition was not necessarily the instigator of soaring crime rates. Furthermore, he also claims that alcohol usage diminished drastically as a result of its illegalization. Although this may well be, Bennett provides no statistical or research evidence as proof of these claims. Indeed, he addresses the topic only briefly, as a springboard for his counter-arguments. It is almost as if the issue was addressed only for the benefit of those who would use the events surrounding the Prohibition as an argument in favor of legalizing drugs. I feel that the author could have made his argument much stronger by providing research evidence for his claims.
Nevertheless,...
Considering the effect, as stated, that alcohol has on families and communities today, one cannot fault the claim that it is hardly a sound model for legalizing even more harmful substances for release into the vulnerable community.
In general, I find the article both compelling and chilling. It is chilling that so many legislators and policymakers find themselves at the crossroads of a decision that they seem to have no skill or knowledge to make. Many of these officials are what Bennett refers to rather sneeringly as "armchair intellectuals," while those who are in the very real claws of drugs are
suffering, but working to end the devastation.
Bennett seems to offer a ray of hope in terms of the inner spirit of those families and friends of drug victims who refuse to become part of the
statistics. If this spirit can be translated to legislators, there may be hope for the United States'
war on drugs yet.
