Readers discuss whether the ‘war’ is the right way to combat the violence fuelled by the drugs trade
You recently set out in detail the catastrophic consequences of the current “war on drugs” (Editorial, 14 February), from tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Mexico to the mass incarceration of young black men in the US, and the corruption of politicians by the cartels. In doing so, you rightly assert the need to protect innocent people and minimise any harm associated with drug use and drugs laws. Nevertheless, you also conclude that the war must continue to be waged.
Your justification rests on two extraordinary claims. First, that anything short of, or different from, victory on the current terms of the conflict amounts to “surrender”. This dismissal of political alternatives sits oddly in a newspaper with a noble tradition of opposing mass violence in pursuit of unwinnable political ends.