I seem to have predicted before the invasion of Iraq that if the results got bad the debate would get ugly.
Searching my archives for something else entirely, I ran into this paragraph, written in February 2003, just before the invasion of Iraq.
So far, the debate about the invasion of Iraq has involved far less vituperation than was the case about Vietnam. As far as I know, I haven’t lost any friends by being pro-war, and I wouldn’t expect to lose any if tomorrow I became anti-war. That civility is worth holding on to, and won’t be easy to hold onto if the thing goes badly, as well it might.
I claim points for prescience. “The thing” did go badly, and the civility wasn’t easy to hold on to.
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Books:
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
UCLA Homepage
Curriculum Vitae
Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com
View all posts by Mark Kleiman