Comment by 1718627440
9 hours ago
It's not a framing I haven't heard either ( :-) ), but I think that was what he wanted to suggest. I have however known this stance in general, and I think I agree to some point. You can always view a revolution from the side of your enemy, the lessons will be important when you are the large empire.
I think the wars and revolutions to free countries from being colonized were never honorable (like all wars) even when they served a greater good in the large scheme. I even think that also applies to WW2 (Churchill famously said later they should have gone after USSR first), there is always some dirty stuff going on from all sides, and maybe it applies to the American revolution as well. These revolutions often spark from egoistic interests even if they claim to fight for the greater good.
these are all true and great things to keep in mind, but I'm still struggling to work out how this relates to drug criminalization policy
There are people who think it is a crime and there are people who don't. Having something being a crime and not prosecute it hard enough makes both factions unhappy. The claim is that starting to prosecute a crime lightly leads to a shift in mentality in the society, which leads to people who don't perceive it to be a crime. This will eventually lead to it being inevitable that it is allowed. The policy claim is that you need to prosecute it harder before it comes to late. (I am inclined to agree to these claims.) The fact that you refer to it as "criminalization" seams to be evidence, that it is already too late.
My personal opinion, which wasn't stated yet, is that after a phase of lax regulation the problems become excessive, which leads to a larger part of the population to agree to a harder regime. After some time nobody remembers these things so it tends to become lax again. In other words I think this is going in circles, so I don't think we need to try it this time. Have a middle way and help thus who can't get off by themselves.