Legalize Drugs or Send more troops?

It appears that the crisis on the US-Mexico border is worsening. In Nuevo Laredo, the Mexican town across the border from Laredo, Texas, drug cartels are having their way and are killing at will. The Mexican government is trying to fight back, but the problem is apparently beyond their resources. Mark Stevenson wrote the article "Mexicans praise US border security measures", in which he discusses the United States' plan to deploy more federal agents and other troops to the US-Mexico border. However, is that really the answer? Jeffrey A. Miron from Harvard University writes, "Legalize drugs to stop violence", which sounds like a very logical approach. Initially, I was apprehensive about the idea of legalizing all drugs. However, after reading the article in its entirety and giving it some thought, I believe this may actually be a great solution to the problem.

Miron discusses how the United States faced similar problems when it established prohibitions on alcohol and how violence decreased once those bans were removed. Yes, legalizing drugs will bring with it many other issues, but as the saying goes—which is the better of two evils? The nicotine in cigarettes is one of the most addictive substances available, and cigarettes have been proven to cause cancer. Yet, we sell them without remorse or regret in order to generate substantial tax revenue. Alcohol can lead to disease—from cirrhosis of the liver to kidney failure—yet we permit the sale of alcohol and enjoy the tax revenue. Why not do the same for all drugs? We spend millions of tax dollars on the war against drugs and continue to lose the fight. Why not eliminate the fight and generate millions of tax dollars instead?

In my opinion, Miron has hit the nail on the head with this article. The article is very detailed with good reference to our history, and there is an understanding that this isn't a perfect solution, but one which will require "using regulation and taxation to dampen irresponsible behavior related to drug use, such as driving under the influence". What I enjoyed most is that this article wasn't written by another "pothead" trying to justify the legalization of marijuana; rather, it's a well thought out and simple way to solving the increasing violence on our borders.

Stimulus for Texas -- Gov. Perry

Maybe I'm just naive or maybe politics are really just that blunt, but what I fail to understand is how in the last 8 years we could allow Trillions of dollars to be spent on assisting a foreign economy become a democracy but when the idea of spending under 1 Trillion dollars on the American economy is presented, our Republican Governor says he may refuse it. Why didn't he refuse to send Texas soldiers to Iraq? I understand big spending is just making the deficit worse, but I haven't seen the Republican party offer better ideas in the last 8 years, we allowed Bush to spend trillions, but now we want to be conservative and not spend money? Does the Republican party really care more about being right and Obama failing than the American people? Please enlighten me if I am just politically ignorant.

The article, Perry relents on stimulus money, is about Governor Perry deciding to accept the stimulus after all, and I feel it is worth reading because it directly affects the Texas economic situation. The stimulus package is supposed to pump money into the system to improve transportation, which has been a big issue in Austin (Toll Roads). Is this possibly a reason Governor Perry didn't want to accept the funds? Austin is currently on the brink of announcing multiple major layoffs, and this stimulus package may have a direct impact on our future.