NationStates Jolt Archive

When considering whether various drugs and alchohol should be illegal, many people seem to tend to forget about one factor. That factor is what I like to call the price of illegalization, or what it costs to enforce a ban. Banning anything desired enough that people will attempt to evade the ban does two negative things.

It provides money to criminal organizations, which otherwise would have to rely on things like theft to get by.

It creates a burden to the police force, who have to combat drug trafficking.

It adds to the prison population.

And so, whenever considering the illegalization of something, these factors must be considered.

Comments?

One of my favorite sites.
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/toc.htm

If you're not aware of this book, you need to be. BTW, the author died as a result of loss of his medically necessary marijuana.

It depends on the drug. Marijuana? I don't know. I'm on the fence about it. Cocaine? I am categorically against legalization of it.

Correct. Its basic economics really. If you ban something people want, the market finds a way. Be it black market or regular markets. Just like when a price is artificially inflated or deflated for whatever reason, black markets take over.

Correct. Its basic economics really. If you ban something people want, the market finds a way. Be it black market or regular markets. Just like when a price is artificially inflated or deflated for whatever reason, black markets take over.

So the way to go about it, economically, is to get rid of the demand. Up til now, we have mostly been going after the supply, which doesn't do much. There is so much money in it that somebody else will step in to take advantage of it.

interesting... but here's a question for you.

Admiting that there are vast numbers of people who are Alcoholics, and that there are facilities that are dedicated to Alcoholism...

are you saying you would like to see...

Firemen high on Marjiuana as they drive to your burning home?
Police on PCP crusing out streets?
Bus Drivers on Cocaine?
Commercial Airline pilots on Depressants?
a President on Acid?
Your children's teacher on Escascy?

Granted you can try and limit them to off hours or off duty personnel, but monitoring becomes a problem (random Drug testing is an invasion of privacy) limiting it to perscriptions still leaves the market open for illeagal sellers...

something to think about as you are on a Commercial flight and your life is in the hands of the person in the control tower.

So the way to go about it, economically, is to get rid of the demand. Up til now, we have mostly been going after the supply, which doesn't do much. There is so much money in it that somebody else will step in to take advantage of it.

Ah, but how does the state remove demand without imposing even more restrictive rules on the market? I daresay I cannot think of any way of doing so. Perhaps peer pressure could lessen the demand, perhaps education could undercut it, but the demand would still be there.

I never said that the price was too high, and that we shouldn't illegalize anything. I was just saying that there is in fact, a price. If the benefits of illegalization outweigh the costs, then it should be illegalized. Things such as cocaine, meth, and heroin should be illegalized because the benifits of illegalizing them outweigh the cost.

You don't need complete legalization to reduce the costs of prohibition. Merely providing addicts with cheap safe herion will stop those addicts from commiting crimes to feed their addiction, and will cut the profits for criminals who sell drugs. It also will save on legal and incareration costs. It's win win. It benefits the addicts, and it benefits society. It sucks for criminals.

we need to at least decriminalize most recreational drugs. the costs of prosecuting and imprisoning casual users is much too high.

a President on Acid?

Are you sure he isn't?

interesting... but here's a question for you.

Admiting that there are vast numbers of people who are Alcoholics, and that there are facilities that are dedicated to Alcoholism...

are you saying you would like to see...

Firemen high on Marjiuana as they drive to your burning home?
Police on PCP crusing out streets?
Bus Drivers on Cocaine?
Commercial Airline pilots on Depressants?
a President on Acid?
Your children's teacher on Escascy?

Granted you can try and limit them to off hours or off duty personnel, but monitoring becomes a problem (random Drug testing is an invasion of privacy) limiting it to perscriptions still leaves the market open for illeagal sellers...

something to think about as you are on a Commercial flight and your life is in the hands of the person in the control tower.

It seems to me that you shot down your own arguement.
You see, alchohol is legal. But people still aren't allowed to do the aforementioned activities under the influence of alchohol. And most people don't. You think making these drugs legal will make people, who wouldn't otherwise, go to work under their influence? I'm sorry, that just makes no sense.

Ah, but how does the state remove demand without imposing even more restrictive rules on the market? I daresay I cannot think of any way of doing so. Perhaps peer pressure could lessen the demand, perhaps education could undercut it, but the demand would still be there.

Sure, you can't get rid of it completely, but you won't ever get rid of murder completely either. It's the nature of crime that it won't ever completely go away.

On the other side, we should be attacking the demand side. From what I understand, we spend most of our time prosecuting pushers. We need to go after the users, especially the recreational ones before they become hardcore addicts. Granted, we don't have enough jail cells to hold them, but we do have a lot of streets that need trash picked up from them. I say that we turn one-time use into a misdemeanor, punishible by a few hundred hours of community service. Keep it a felony for multiple infractions and driving under the influence.

Police on PCP crusing out streets?
Unstoppable, juggernaut-like police officers. Yes please.


Your children's teacher on Escascy?
If it helps them keep up with the kids, sure.

interesting... but here's a question for you.

Admiting that there are vast numbers of people who are Alcoholics, and that there are facilities that are dedicated to Alcoholism...

are you saying you would like to see...

Firemen high on Marjiuana as they drive to your burning home?
Police on PCP crusing out streets?
Bus Drivers on Cocaine?
Commercial Airline pilots on Depressants?
a President on Acid?
Your children's teacher on Escascy?

Granted you can try and limit them to off hours or off duty personnel, but monitoring becomes a problem (random Drug testing is an invasion of privacy) limiting it to perscriptions still leaves the market open for illeagal sellers...

something to think about as you are on a Commercial flight and your life is in the hands of the person in the control tower.


Silly argument. Just because alcohol is legal, why would I want to see a fireman or police officer drunk on duty? Same goes with drugs. And how are the laws preventing these things from happening now? Pilots on anti depressants can already fly(I think)

Point being, I wouldnt want to see any of these people on currently LEGAL drugs/stimulatants. How does legalizing some drugs change anything other than reducing the criminal element?

Every man is free...



...just not in what he ingests.


(Remember: prohibition works)

Silly argument. Just because alcohol is legal, why would I want to see a fireman or police officer drunk on duty? Same goes with drugs. And how are the laws preventing these things from happening now? Pilots on anti depressants can already fly(I think)

Point being, I wouldnt want to see any of these people on currently LEGAL drugs/stimulatants. How does legalizing some drugs change anything other than reducing the criminal element?

Well it does increase the accessable user base massively. Though I think, if done right, legalisation of certain drugs could have a positive affect in reducing the drug problem.

Every man is free...



...just not in what he ingests.


(Remember: prohibition works)

Actually, it did. In the US, alcohol use went down during Prohibition.

A couple of weeks ago, one of my professors told us an interesting story. In the mid-90's, the Swedish government was a little worried about heavy drinking in Sweden. They decided to lower the tax on beer so that more people will drink that instead of hard liquor. It didn't work. Hard liquor use went up by 12%. At the same time, beer consumption went up by 250%. I really doubt that legalization will work very well on drugs.

It seems to me that you shot down your own arguement.
You see, alchohol is legal. But people still aren't allowed to do the aforementioned activities under the influence of alchohol. And most people don't. You think making these drugs legal will make people, who wouldn't otherwise, go to work under their influence? I'm sorry, that just makes no sense.and the money to be spent monitoring it? after all random drug testing is considered an invasion of privacy. And even with today's standards, you still have Rampant Alcohol abuse. so my point being, Legalize drugs and how do prevent my examples? How many lives will be lost because someone was hopped up on something?

When considering whether various drugs and alchohol should be illegal, many people seem to tend to forget about one factor. That factor is what I like to call the price of illegalization, or what it costs to enforce a ban. Banning anything desired enough that people will attempt to evade the ban does two negative things.

It provides money to criminal organizations, which otherwise would have to rely on things like theft to get by.

It creates a burden to the police force, who have to combat drug trafficking.

It adds to the prison population.

And so, whenever considering the illegalization of something, these factors must be considered.

Comments?


Well, I'll tell you this much, as a totally unrepentant marijuana user, the so called war on drugs has never stopped anyone I know, including myself, from trying or using drugs.

What stopped me from advancing from weed to other, more narcotic types of drugs? Why my own common sense, of course. Maybe we should take all the millions of dollars spent every year on fruitless drug hunts and busts and instead, invest it in teaching children good old fashioned common sense??