Let's talk about drugs.

Post Reply New Topic

Banning alcohol would certainly not solve anything. I have read that a glass of red wine a day (or a week, can't remember) is good for a person; the men of Sardinia in particular advocate this, and they also are some of the longest lived in the world

"That's more a condition of it being illegal than a problem with the drug itself."


By that, I meant that more of the crimes are from it's legal state, not that absolutely all crimes are from its legal state.

And they don't factor in the drop in law enforcement required, jailing costs, and court costs. Nor do they factor in the quality of life problems that the black market brings on areas already blighted by poverty.

Well, right, I am a proponent of legalization because I don't see liberalization as changing crime other than the crimes removed by decriminalization. That's not strange, and my admission isn't that large really, as I am not basing it off of a body of research(as I am not opposed to the idea).


Well, ok, but marijuana, compared to other drugs, has a significantly larger market than those drugs. As such, by legalizing one of them, we reduce profits.


Your argument here only makes sense if a person is completely ignorant of economic theory. Only one word is necessary to demolish it: diminishing marginal returns. Simply by reducing the number of markets that criminals can have access to, we reduce their profits and sales, and thus reduce the criminal activity, simply because they can't use the same resources to get the same amount of benefit with less opportunity. If they could do so, then they probably already would be doing this.


Well, I don't have to be because your earlier argument outright failed on econ 101. However, I still would promote legalization.

Actually, I think you have only suggested that the full social costs would be higher. I find little reason to think this is the case though, because in order to argue this to be true, you would have to commit to the idea that the demand for drugs is relatively elastic, but the elasticity of demand for drugs likely is going to be very low, as addicts are relatively inflexible, and if the only reason why people didn't use certain drugs was a lack of addiction, then the only thing to be said is that drug sellers have a poor profit-maximizing strategy for the sale of drugs, but this is unlikely given that drugs are all about profit. In any case, at best, you've argued that pure financial costs cannot be used to control the drug trade due to the problems of arbitrage, however, even if we grant your point, you have given no real reason to think that no regulatory structure could maintain benefits of legalization while reducing costs. Frankly, all that is really needed for this to work is a regulatory structure that reduces profits by criminals for these drugs(and allowing other entrants alone can do this), but also that controls quantity, and created situations where costs were generally internalized compared to the current method. I don't think that this is ridiculous though. Maybe we can argue that mechanisms required are hard to design, but, I don't think there is a general case that no regulatory policy can exist in which legalization is better than criminalization, but rather I think there are many possibilities that can be undertaken, and that these possibilities will result in massive improvements in the situation with drugs, mostly through dealing with the criminal element, while putting this problem out in the open.

As it stands, legalization would likely result in a criminal sector drying up a lot, simply due to information costs favoring the legal option, marketing favoring the legal option, as well as just the simple fact that a lower market share to criminal elements will likely remove some of the economies of scale that these criminal elements currently enjoy. (along with the fact that these criminal elements will undoubtedly have higher base costs than a legal option)

Quaalude's are still big in some places, namely parts of Africa... The real reason they went in decline here was related to the fact that mostly people into disco liked them, and thus they went out with disco.. Ever hear of 'juice bars'?

Attempting to bring in marginalism here won't work. Remember, rational people think on the margin- but people are stupid.

Well, ok, I imagine that you are referencing Yoram Bauman, the standup economist, however, this use of marginalism is sensible.

Of course it's sensible; I meant that it won't work in a debate context if you are addressing people who don't think in terms of marginalism.

You mean that I can't reference marginalism if I am talking to idiots? Well, duh, the only thing that works on idiots is fire!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ludes.html

Some drugs are used by more people than others though. The reason pot is so popular is it doesn't cause a hangover, vomiting, physical addiction, or people to get aggressive and violent. The reason so little people touch heroin is because of its reputation for being the most addictive and toxic drug. If grass was legalized, because of its properties that are less dangerous than alcohol, I wouldn't want to touch any other drug the black market would want to offer me. I'm into it for very specific effects that I can't get from any other plant or substance.

There's a big difference between frying on e and just smoking a joint. I think because it was the 80s and it was gaining popularity as a psychedelic from its legal therapy use and electronic music scenes at the time, it probably would have shown up anyway, whether Netherlands opened coffee shops or not. I really doubt that pot growers just up and decided to start manufacturing ecstacy tabs, because its a very different process. One involves gardening and the other advanced chemistry. You also have to keep in mind that it wasn't something illicit suppliers just decided to switch to. It actually started as a legal activity before it was eventually regulated and banned.

The reason crime dropped so much with alcohol was because it was something culturally and widely accepted that moralists decided to ban, expecting a positive effect. It basically turned most the country into criminals, and the massive popularity, because of its cultural connection gave money revenues to the mob. Most illicit drug users just smoke pot and nothing else. If we banned pot, the drug cartels would lose revenue from pot users who use no other drugs but pot. The vast majority of their revenue comes from moving grass, and it would be a huge bludgeon to their income. I really doubt that the exclusive pot users would decide to just start using something illicit for the sake of it once pot's legal.

Last edited by JNathanK on 27 Jan 2011, 11:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Drugs are good, they let you do things that you know you not should.
And when you do 'em people think that you're cool.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqPNpZzE9xc[/youtube]

I just remembered saying I'll get back to you and address your sources so here I am...

This is true. I know people who stopped either because they got too anxious while high or wanted to stop destroying their health. btw, this anxiety isn't specific to the fear of getting caught, weed can make you more anxious in general if you gpet too high.

These are weekly smokers you are talking about. Yeah they'd be able to buy more weed with less money, but if they have enough self-restraint to smoke weekly and not blow all their money on weed, then they're not gonna start smoking as often as they breathe all the sudden. Those who smoke daily are irresponsible enough to blow all their money on weed given the black market prices, so legalizing it is gonna be the same s**t. Representative sample? Wow that is so vague. Looks like cluster sampling hasn't been ruled out

Durr hurr no s**t. The 80's and 90's were the peaks of drug propaganda in the states so obviously the establishment of the drug legalization movement doesn't go as far back. Why are all these other groups even named? The first YMCA was founded in 1844, so obviously you can't compare something deeper and more historically established to something more recently rising in the midst of drug propaganda. That's like saying there's no such thing as atheism (which also happens to be on the rise) since religion is more deeply and historically established as well as being institutionalized.

There's no test as far as I know that tests marijuana intoxication, so this is twisted wording. A typical urine test or testing of a hair sample detects inactive metabolites, not intoxication.

Wow, talk about destroying your own stance. If the illegality of drugs is enough to deter you, then there's something under the sink that'll give you the satisfaction you're looking for.

Hell no not the NIDA. I've already proven them to be politically motivated in this thread, nuff said

Dealers don't deal to children because it attracts too much heat (What the f**k does a hooded guy in a playground surrounded by kids look like?), they don't even have much money so they'd make sh***y customers, it's easier for them to OD, and it's not considered ethical in the criminal underworld to sell drugs to kids anyways.

Medical science has improved big time which is more responsible for declining murder rates than anything else. Nowadays there's an 80% chance you'll survive from one bullet wound. Yet another correlation-causation confusion. This can also be attributed to economic growth in the 90's.

Anyways, I actually had to put more thought into my rebuttal than your first few sources, but there's still the same old correlation-causation confusions, twisted definitions to broaden classifications in statistics, faulty attributions, and plain unfounded claims. Oh, and for God's sake government sources are obviously gonna be biased and have political motivations. The next time you think about posting another government source, stop, go to a Chevy dealership and ask em what they think about Ford cars.

^^^

I don't think you have effectively dealt with my sources at all, you have just given me opinion and conjecture. You certainly have not convinced me of the virtues of legalization, it's still a risk I cannot support, due to the clear evidence against putting legal heroin and crack on the market.

I don't care about crack or heroin. Keep it illegal. All I want is legal weed so people don't go to prison and get a permanent, criminal record for smoking a plant that nobody has ever overdosed on, gotten physically addicted to, gotten cancer from, or become violent from and beaten their wife over.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JVOHgCFd-Q[/youtube]

SCIAM Study Shows No Link to Cancer

link - Cannabis Extract Shrinks Brain Tumor

Do you have any sources for that? There have been studies suggesting that red wine might be good for cardiovascular health, but I have never heard of any study suggesting that any type of alcohol in any quantity is good for one's liver.

Alcohol has been made illegal once before, where it had been legal for almost as long as it has been now when compared to the overall history of humanity; it is doubtful that it would be more difficult to criminalize now than it was then, except for the memory of that adventure's dismal failure.

My post was not to advocate outlawing alcohol, merely to point out that whether or not people go 'out of their minds' under the influence of something has very little relationship to whether or not it is legal.