FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Legalizing drugs (Page 0)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Legalizing drugs
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I'm contemplating the use of video games in cars where one has to exceed a certain score to turn on the car.

Because I don't run late enough in the mornings already?

"One sec guys, one sec! We can go as soon as I kill this alien!"

I was thinking this as well, not to mention that if I initially failed because of a slip of the finger I'd get angry and do progressively worse in the game.

Hmmm...maybe this would create a noticeable drop in road rage, I think that's something we can all get behind.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Hmmm...maybe this would create a noticeable drop in road rage, I think that's something we can all get behind.

Doubtful.

"It took me five tries to blow away the slime monster, but I bet I can take YOU out first try!" CRAAAASH!

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Hmmm...maybe this would create a noticeable drop in road rage, I think that's something we can all get behind.

Doubtful.

"It took me five tries to blow away the slime monster, but I bet I can take YOU out first try!" CRAAAASH!

*mach 5 jump!*
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
I could see legalization of marijuana in some form. And I think that might well do away with at least some of the problems that are broadly lumped together under the heading of "the problem with the war on drugs."

But frankly, there are some drugs I just don't want to be easily accessible to anyone. The idea of crystal methamphetamine being widely available is terrifying. "Yaa baa", a meth variant popular in southeast Asia, was apparently responsible for a million new teenage addicts within Thailand in past five years, at least as of this 2002 BBC report. If the little clump of teenagers smoking outside my highschool every day or the handful of idiots who got dances closed down through drinking was unfortunate, I don't want to think what popularized meth could do.

And that does raise one important point. Some drugs don't do awful things to people and communities just because they're hard to get. They do so because they're addictive as hell and incredibly destructive of the user.

I share a concern Senoj mentions- we already pay some unquestionably high costs for alcohol and tobacco, even if you only count the hospital bills incurred by their users. Do we really want to add cocaine-related heart attacks, heroin overdoses, and the like to our hospital rooms?

There may be a way to make this work through a combination of regulation and treatment, combined with a significant overhaul of our health system. But I think we might need a major change in societal attitudes as well. Straight, across-the-board legalization without serious planning sounds like pulling the bottom brick out of a pile without considering what it might be holding up.

At the very least- not that I get to set policy or anything- I'd want to say, "Could we try legalizing the relatively innocuous pot first and see how that goes before we turn the whole thing on its ear?"

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Please give an example of a culture that has eliminated demand for narcotics, alcohol, and stimulants, without giving up civil liberties.

Mormon culture [Wink]
I knew someone would say that. [Smile] Mormons arguably give up some liberties, at least to fully belong to the culture. But leaving aside that point (I really meant to ask for an example national culture), good Mormons still get addicted to painkillers and other drugs.
I know a good Mormon who used to be a coke feind and now won't keep evil mouthwash in her house.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I have no idea what you are trying to say there.

Although, from the limited information you have given, it sounds like she goes to extremes in whatever she is doing. That's a personality thing, not a religous thing.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't care so much about the money wasted, I care about the communities being destroyed by drug related crime. I've also seen the ravages of drug addiction first hand, I have no desire to see that problem increase. But right now I'm living in a country ravaged by the international drug trade. It's definitely changed my perspective. The damages caused by the illegal trade of drugs are indeed a hundred times worse than the damages from the drugs them self. You'd have to persuade me that drug addiction was going to be a hundred times worse if drugs were legal for me to even consider it a break even.
How would the distribution work? Would we have only American farmers growing pot and cocaine to sell to Americans? Could you grow your own? Can I make my own meth and sell it (paying applicable taxes) at a college? Can I smoke crack and/or pot in a restaurant? Would the drug cartels be able to sell their product legally in America? I would think the drug cartels would be able to produce high quality drugs very cheaply, much cheaper than we could. I also suspect they would be able to make even more profit than they are now from increased usage. How cheap do we set prices to be? If your goal is to eliminate crime from drug use then we would have to make it freely available to anyone who wants it. Would there be any limits on how much heroin you can buy in a day, week, month?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Can I smoke crack and/or pot in a restaurant?
Point of order: Most places you can't even smoke tobacco.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Straight, across-the-board legalization without serious planning sounds like pulling the bottom brick out of a pile without considering what it might be holding up.
Hence my previous post, about distinguishing between the illegality of the drug, versus illegality of the negative behavior that is associated with the drug.

With prohibition they pretty much turned their back on the problem, and it took about 50 years before law enforcement caught up and developed some teeth. As I see it, pushing drugs is the single worst of these behaviors, and if it's legal, then the 1st amendment says you can advertise it.

Here is my ideal scenario (note that this is stringent enough that it pretty much discounts the possibility of legalization).

Before a date is set to legalize (any particular) drug:

1. The constitution would have to be amended to make it illegal to promote the use of the drug for any reason that is not medically recognized. That means no advertising of any sort, even peer pressure would be criminal.

2. Laws establishing the legality of behavior while under the drug's influence would have to be established. Any situation where the user's decision making process could adversely affect others (driving, making medical diagnoses, operating machinery, cooking, etc.) would have to be clearly outlined. Use of the drug in the presence of children would be illegal.

3. Limits of blood or tissue concentration would have to be established and easily understood and testable.

4. Guidelines for purity, dosage, safe packaging, and instructions for use would be established by the FDA

5. Vendors would need a license to sell the drug. This would include private sale.

6. Drug users would need a license to buy the drug. A conviction for drug related illegal behavior would result is the loss of the license. Selling the drug to anyone who did not present a valid license would result in the loss of the vendor's license.

Oh, and this would apply for alcohol as well...

Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
How would the distribution work?
Like alcohol. Regulated. Market-based. From approved distributors that adhere to codes.

quote:
Would the drug cartels be able to sell their product legally in America?
no.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post 
The problem with regulated distribution is that the illegal supply channels are entrenched enough that they would undercut sales through a licensed and taxed distributor. Reuse a couple of crates of the legal stuff to transport the illegal stuff and life just got a lot easier for the drug smugglers.

Since possession would no longer be illegal, once one bought some pot, it doesn't matter where it came from. It can be consumed in any smoking area just like the legal stuff. Meanwhile, it's EASIER to sell the cartel products because only the transaction needs to be disguised, not the dealer's possession nor the users use.

While the legal stuff would certainly get some patronage, I can easily see sales of the illegal stuff going up simultaneously.

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The problem with regulated distribution is that the illegal supply channels are entrenched enough that they would undercut sales through a licensed and taxed distributor.
Why didn't this happen with alcohol when prohibition ended?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
The problem with regulated distribution is that the illegal supply channels are entrenched enough that they would undercut sales through a licensed and taxed distributor.
Why didn't this happen with alcohol when prohibition ended?
I guess some people wanted their bathtubs back.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
It did, to an extent.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Would we have only American farmers growing pot and cocaine to sell to Americans?

Should Americans buy only American cars? This issue is not particularly pertinent to drugs, beyond ensuring that foreign drugs satisfy FDA requirements.
quote:

Could you grow your own?

Sure.
quote:

Can I make my own meth and sell it (paying applicable taxes) at a college?

If you have a license, if it meets the safety requirements and if the buyers are over 21.

quote:

Can I smoke crack and/or pot in a restaurant?

Presumably this would be decided on a state by state basis (as for cigarettes). I assume that the majority would say no. The restaurant would probably also be required to have a license.

quote:

Would the drug cartels be able to sell their product legally in America? I would think the drug cartels would be able to produce high quality drugs very cheaply, much cheaper than we could. I also suspect they would be able to make even more profit than they are now from increased usage. How cheap do we set prices to be?

The cartels are highly profitable in a large part because they can charge very high prices because of the danger involved. This would no longer be the case. Furthermore, though they might have some advantage insofar as they already manufacture the drugs, they will still have to make sure that the drugs conform to the FDA requirements. Furthermore, they have no patents etc. so it's really hard to believe that a pharmaceutical company would not catch up very fast.

quote:

If your goal is to eliminate crime from drug use then we would have to make it freely available to anyone who wants it. Would there be any limits on how much heroin you can buy in a day, week, month?

If by freely available, you mean available to adults over 21 who purchase it, then (in my opinion) yes.

If drugs were legalized, it would be astounding to me if drug use did not increase. However I think that the correlation between drug user and failed citizen is heavily influenced by the illegality of drugs- I think we will find that removing the high cost of drugs and the need to deal with unsavory characters in order to get drugs will mean that productive citizens can support a drug habit. Given the many, many bad things directly attributable to the war on drugs, I think it would be worth testing this.

Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Katarain
Member
Member # 6659

 - posted      Profile for Katarain   Email Katarain         Edit/Delete Post 
I think it is pretty far-fetched to suggest that people would continue buying their pot through illegal sources if there was a legal alternative. I also think it highly unlikely that people would even bother growing their own if they could just go down to the drugstore and buy some, even if growing is cheaper and isn't taxed.

People can grow their own food, but most of them don't. It's easier and less of a hassle to buy it from the store. Buying pot would be the same thing. Why go to some shady dealer's house if you can just run into Walgreens for your weed?

Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
The problem with regulated distribution is that the illegal supply channels are entrenched enough that they would undercut sales through a licensed and taxed distributor. Reuse a couple of crates of the legal stuff to transport the illegal stuff and life just got a lot easier for the drug smugglers.

Not an established issue. Legal distribution undercuts the profit margins and the demand for distribution that illegal dope depends on.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
m_p_h: how much of an extent, roughly?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I guess some people wanted their bathtubs back.
I realize you're being silly, but I'm asking you to support your claim that "entrenched" distribution networks would ensure a continuing black market and that said market could undercut legal markets.

Bathtub booze is not what drove wealthy, criminal bootlegging operations. Why didn't these operations provide black market liquor at prices that undercut legitimate vendors after alcohol sales were legalized?

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
I know that there are still illegal stills up in the hills.

But then, people have been making illegal moonshine in the hills for longer that the US has been a country.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure those people are undercutting sales so much as indulging in an activity they enjoy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.victorianvilla.com/sims-mitchell/local/vis/suttonp/

This guy killed himself rather than report to federal prison for his moonshining.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
That's too bad. Legalizing his distilling activities would have been far better.

I think that article and the other about his death make it very clear he made moonshine out of enjoyment.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Katarain:
I think it is pretty far-fetched to suggest that people would continue buying their pot through illegal sources if there was a legal alternative. I also think it highly unlikely that people would even bother growing their own if they could just go down to the drugstore and buy some, even if growing is cheaper and isn't taxed.

People can grow their own food, but most of them don't. It's easier and less of a hassle to buy it from the store. Buying pot would be the same thing. Why go to some shady dealer's house if you can just run into Walgreens for your weed?

When I think of illegal sources, I'm thinking foreign sources, and their associated mafias, not a home garden nor some hypothetical fancy import company from Holland.

I think of the people who are not legally able to purchase their own drugs, or people who find that a dealer is actually cheaper. Or, those who have loyalty to a dealer. I've also heard that some marijuana is laced with other drugs. *That* certainly won't be available at Walgreens.

In an old World Watch, OSC pointed out that people who are underage are not looked down at as criminals, just young. See a 17 year old smoking pot, and you'd think that stores should be carding people, not that the kid is supporting drug cartels.

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boris
Member
Member # 6935

 - posted      Profile for Boris   Email Boris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
I guess some people wanted their bathtubs back.
I realize you're being silly, but I'm asking you to support your claim that "entrenched" distribution networks would ensure a continuing black market and that said market could undercut legal markets.

Bathtub booze is not what drove wealthy, criminal bootlegging operations. Why didn't these operations provide black market liquor at prices that undercut legitimate vendors after alcohol sales were legalized?

Primarily because prohibition really didn't last very long, particularly in comparison with many illegal drugs. Heroin has been illegal for 106 years, for instance. Additionally, most (if not all) of the major producers of alcohol switched to brewing various sodas and remained in operation throughout the period. Once the laws were changed it was a simple matter of changing the ingredients and process slightly and they were producing alcohol again. Granted, some of them were producing alcohol the whole time, anyway, but still. I'd also like to point out that one of the primary causes for the failure of prohibition was that it had *been* legal to drink and produce alcohol since before the beginning of written history. The United States was in great part built on the whiskey and rum trade. It was one of those "can't put the genie back in the bottle" situations.

But I'd like to bring up a point here, one drug in particular is going to bring about some major hurdles. Cocaine. Now, the Coca plant grows almost exclusively in Central America. 75% of cocaine production is out of Columbia. Consider the fact that the cartels, in great part, control the cultivation, harvesting, and processing of cocaine. And since we're talking 75% of the *world's* cocaine production, how do you convince the cartels, who control all of that production, to work with legitimate businesses? Do you really expect that they'll be more than happy to take less money for the same amount of product? They would have to be stupid to cooperate with that willingly. I'm sure they'd be willing to take as much, or more, but that wouldn't stop them from killing people to increase their profits. And it certainly wouldn't result it *cheaper* drugs in the US.

Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
(A small part of me wonders if similar conversations were afoot when European cartels were responsible for opium smuggling and the war on drugs was an actual war)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Of course. In both of Britain's Houses, IIRC.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Should Americans buy only American cars? This issue is not particularly pertinent to drugs, beyond ensuring that foreign drugs satisfy FDA requirements.
quote:
The cartels are highly profitable in a large part because they can charge very high prices because of the danger involved. This would no longer be the case. Furthermore, though they might have some advantage insofar as they already manufacture the drugs, they will still have to make sure that the drugs conform to the FDA requirements. Furthermore, they have no patents etc. so it's really hard to believe that a pharmaceutical company would not catch up very fast.
My point was that the drug cartels who have hurt, killed, destroyed so many lives would be able to make even more money legally. Most likely they would be able to import and sell their drugs legally for a profit, and also import and sell their drugs illegally for a bigger profit so they gain money and power no matter what. Catching up to what the drug cartels can produce in quality is only part of it. Not having to worry about law enforcement at all and having very cheap labor will ensure the drug cartels can produce drugs much cheaper than we ever could.
quote:
Point of order: Most places you can't even smoke tobacco.
Exactly. While we are demonizing tobacco and preventing people from smoking tobacco anywhere at all we are attempting to allow them to smoke pot, crack, meth and/or swallow/inject any other drug they want. How does that make any kind of sense at all? I think crystal meth, cocaine, heroin and many other drugs are much more addictive and many times more destructive than cigarettes.
quote:
Like alcohol. Regulated. Market-based. From approved distributors that adhere to codes.
So I could, like I can with beer and wine, legally grow my own pot and completely sidestep any government taxes? How about other drugs like steriods? I suppose they should be legal to the home consumer as well? Many studies show how addictive nicotine is, with claims that it is the most addictive substance on earth, but no one overdoes on tobacco. Your judgment is not impaired with tobacco. There are definite health risks with tobacco but they are nowhere near the levels of immediate risk as many other drugs.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
rivka: Got any online references? That sounds interesting.

I'm particularly curious about how companies like the East India Company managed the transition away from selling drugs (Or did they?)* and how the whole affair was viewed in Britain.

* Granted the whole thing probably has no (or little) relevance to this conversation, but I would still find it quite intriguing

(I originally was more curious that the whole thing would be more like an Alice in the Looking Glass situation for the Chinese. In that a Chinese leader at the time, faced with the unenviable choice of working with white people selling drugs and trying to steer them toward more legitimate activities or alternatively seeking to ban drugs and having to go to war to enforce that choice would find the current situation mighty peculiar and almost poetic ... but this related line of thought is also interesting)

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
Glen Greenwald's whitepaper, Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies is now online.

The link points to a summary of the paper, but you can download the pdf of the actual paper from a link at the bottom of the page. I'm pretty interested to see what he has to say, and I'm looking forward, tonight, to watching the video of his presentation, as well as that of an advocate of criminalization offering a rebuttal of Greenwald's paper. Should be interesting.

Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting link Noemon. Unfortunately, he doesn't discuss whether decriminalizing the demand side of the drug trade does has any impact on the supply side. My biggest concerns with the drug trade right now are the extreme violence that is destroying life in countries involved in the supply side of the the drug trade.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
rivka: Got any online references? That sounds interesting.

Nope. I think I picked this up from historical novels. However, they were by multiple authors who researched the era, and it does make sense.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Should Americans buy only American cars? This issue is not particularly pertinent to drugs, beyond ensuring that foreign drugs satisfy FDA requirements.
quote:
The cartels are highly profitable in a large part because they can charge very high prices because of the danger involved. This would no longer be the case. Furthermore, though they might have some advantage insofar as they already manufacture the drugs, they will still have to make sure that the drugs conform to the FDA requirements. Furthermore, they have no patents etc. so it's really hard to believe that a pharmaceutical company would not catch up very fast.
My point was that the drug cartels who have hurt, killed, destroyed so many lives would be able to make even more money legally. Most likely they would be able to import and sell their drugs legally for a profit, and also import and sell their drugs illegally for a bigger profit so they gain money and power no matter what. Catching up to what the drug cartels can produce in quality is only part of it. Not having to worry about law enforcement at all and having very cheap labor will ensure the drug cartels can produce drugs much cheaper than we ever could.
There seem to be a couple of things at play here. One seems to be a moral objection based on the view that the cartels are ideally suited to benefit from the legalization of, say, cocaine because they control the growth of the coca. First, I question the premise that they will realize a net financial benefit. I think the drop in price will substantially outweigh the increase in volume, so the venture will lose its outrageous profitability. However, that is an empirical question whose answer should be explored. Even assuming your premise, however, I don't see this as a substantive issue: 1) they already accrue great benefit, so I think it is better that they do so legally; 2) legalizing drugs does not mean granting amnesty for all prior drug related crimes. These investigations should continue.

Do you think there will be a large market for illegal cocaine, if cocaine were legal?

Labor costs are cheaper outside of the US for almost any industry. I suspect American companies would outsource as well.

Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Do you think there will be a large market for illegal cocaine, if cocaine were legal?
There are a lot of factors. Price would certainly be the main factor. We are constantly increasing the price of cigarettes to make them more unappealing to consumers yet we are discussing dramatically lowering the price of cocaine to make it more appealing to the consumers. If the FDA regulates cocaine (like they are attempting to do with cigarettes and nicotine) and makes a cocaine 'lite' for distribution then the black market cocaine 'full strength' will continue. The amount someone can purchase will also be an issue. If people are limited in the amount they can buy then a black market can also flourish.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Nope. I think I picked this up from historical novels. However, they were by multiple authors who researched the era, and it does make sense.

Could you just sum up the gist of it then? Thanks
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Do you think there will be a large market for illegal cocaine, if cocaine were legal?
There are a lot of factors. Price would certainly be the main factor. We are constantly increasing the price of cigarettes to make them more unappealing to consumers yet we are discussing dramatically lowering the price of cocaine to make it more appealing to the consumers. If the FDA regulates cocaine (like they are attempting to do with cigarettes and nicotine) and makes a cocaine 'lite' for distribution then the black market cocaine 'full strength' will continue. The amount someone can purchase will also be an issue. If people are limited in the amount they can buy then a black market can also flourish.
Is your point is that there exist circumstances in which a black market will flourish?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Nope. I think I picked this up from historical novels. However, they were by multiple authors who researched the era, and it does make sense.

Could you just sum up the gist of it then? Thanks
Many of the same reformers who opposed the slave trade, child labor in factories, and the other social injustices of the day also opposed the opium trade. They could not prevent the first Opium War, but they did prevent a second (although much of the impetus cam from outside England).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Danlo the Wild
Member
Member # 5378

 - posted      Profile for Danlo the Wild   Email Danlo the Wild         Edit/Delete Post 
""""Driving stoned isn't as severe as driving drunk, but when people are high their reaction times are greatly hindered. Legalizing marijuana will greatly increase the likelihood that people will smoke pot *while* driving, which can be a great danger to anyone else on the road. I'm sorry, but your "personal liberty" should not allow you to endanger my life or the lives of anyone else for the sake of "recreation". Nor does it diminish the need for individuals to accept personal responsibility. """"


Ok. I've been driving 'stoned' for 10 years. I have ZERO wrecks and ZERO tickets, now i recognize that I am superhuman, but I must say that DRIVING DRUNK or DRIVING ON A CELLPHONE is 100 times more harmful to those around than smoking pot.

I commute from Ft. Worth to Denton back and forth everyday. And the people who almost KILL ME everyday are people on their cellphones.

So SOCCER MOMS are WAY WAY WAY more dangerous than pot smokers. I don't know how many times i've seen a lady on her phone in her big SUV weaving in and out forcing everyone out of the way while she talks on her cellphone.

So if you want to take the high and mighty "you might hurt me" road, then be an advocate for NO cellphone use on america's highways, because i guarantee you, the data will show that cellphone uses kill more people x1000 than pot smokers.

Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Ok. I've been driving 'stoned' for 10 years. I have ZERO wrecks and ZERO tickets,
Sigh. You realize that there are thousands, if not millions of people who can honestly state one or both of the following?

"I've been driving drunk for 10 years, and I have zero wrecks and zero tickets."

"I've been driving while on the phone for 10 years, and I have zero wrecks and zero tickets."

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Danlo the Wild
Member
Member # 5378

 - posted      Profile for Danlo the Wild   Email Danlo the Wild         Edit/Delete Post 
" Nor does it diminish the need for individuals to accept personal responsibility"

Steven Spielberg. Jimi Hendrix. The Beatles. Bill Clinton. George W. Bush. Barack Obama. Bill Gates. Steve Jobs. JK Rowling.

Maybe you'd better take come personal responsibility and admit that maybe it is the puritans who could help society a little more by expanding their mind.

A lot less people would believe in the Rapture or march LOCK STEP with their religion if they had a mind that thought outside the box. So maybe some of the Grace religions that have been spending their time collecting money and damning people would be better served by sitting on their porch on a sunday and sparking one up.

Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Danlo the Wild:
So if you want to take the high and mighty "you might hurt me" road, then be an advocate for NO cellphone use on america's highways, because i guarantee you, the data will show that cellphone uses kill more people x1000 than pot smokers.

Ok.

quote:
Drivers caught emailing, texting or yapping on hand-held devices such as cellphones or BlackBerrys, or using hand-held global positioning systems would face fines and demerit points, a well-placed government source told the Star.
http://www.thestar.com/article/525697

And we're done.

Back to pot.
(Hint: its not an either/or situation)

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Ok. I've been driving 'stoned' for 10 years.
So quit it. You're being an idiot in a way which stands to harm others.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.overcompensating.com/posts/20090303.html
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Danlo the Wild:
""""Driving stoned isn't as severe as driving drunk, but when people are high their reaction times are greatly hindered. Legalizing marijuana will greatly increase the likelihood that people will smoke pot *while* driving, which can be a great danger to anyone else on the road. I'm sorry, but your "personal liberty" should not allow you to endanger my life or the lives of anyone else for the sake of "recreation". Nor does it diminish the need for individuals to accept personal responsibility. """"


Ok. I've been driving 'stoned' for 10 years. I have ZERO wrecks and ZERO tickets, now i recognize that I am superhuman, but I must say that DRIVING DRUNK or DRIVING ON A CELLPHONE is 100 times more harmful to those around than smoking pot.

I commute from Ft. Worth to Denton back and forth everyday. And the people who almost KILL ME everyday are people on their cellphones.

So SOCCER MOMS are WAY WAY WAY more dangerous than pot smokers. I don't know how many times i've seen a lady on her phone in her big SUV weaving in and out forcing everyone out of the way while she talks on her cellphone.

So if you want to take the high and mighty "you might hurt me" road, then be an advocate for NO cellphone use on america's highways, because i guarantee you, the data will show that cellphone uses kill more people x1000 than pot smokers.

The problem with people who are a danger to themselves and others and think that they are not versus the people who truly are not is that both parties believe they are fine.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Katarain
Member
Member # 6659

 - posted      Profile for Katarain   Email Katarain         Edit/Delete Post 
When you take some prescription drugs, you're supposed to refrain from driving until you either see how they effect you, or until you're used to taking them. Someone who has been taking painkillers for years, for instance, functions better than someone who has just started taking them. Not only do you get used to their effect on you, but their effect is lessened because of your exposure over time.

I think it is in the realm of possibility that marijuana use can affect people in the same way. There may only be anecdotal evidence of this--I don't know if it's ever been studied. It doesn't seem bizarre to me that someone can be so acclimated to marijuana that they are as safe to drive as someone who has been acclimated to taking regular doses of codeine.

Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
Alcohol tolerance exists too (though I've heard some argue that tolerance is mainly subjective and not so much with objective things like reaction time).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
Glen Greenwald's whitepaper, Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies is now online.

The link points to a summary of the paper, but you can download the pdf of the actual paper from a link at the bottom of the page. I'm pretty interested to see what he has to say, and I'm looking forward, tonight, to watching the video of his presentation, as well as that of an advocate of criminalization offering a rebuttal of Greenwald's paper. Should be interesting.

This is interesting reading. Thanks for linking it, Noemon.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Team 2012
Member
Member # 12025

 - posted      Profile for Team 2012   Email Team 2012         Edit/Delete Post 
Another upside: protecting children. Under current laws there is no motivation to avoid sales to minors because there are no licenses to lose. Thus easier for kids to get drugs than tobacco or alcohol.


People are slow to realize that you can't prevent drug use. The more restriction, the higher the price, therefore the more empowered the drug industry.


Another consideration that seems slow to dawn. People tend to regulate what is good for them.
If you have a country in which people would end up junkies without being restrained by threat of prison and deadly force... what's the point?

Posts: 10 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Rez


http://www.prosebeforehos.com/article-of-the-day/03/10/legalization-is-the-answer/?redz

The Economist: The Drug War Is A Economic and Moral Failure That Can Only Be Remedied By Complete Legalization

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for the link Sam. I think its interesting that I (a life long non user of recreational drugs of any kind) had come to exactly the same conclusion. Its going to be a hard sell, but it is the least wrong thing to do. Too many communities are being destroyed by the violence associated with the illegal drug trade, too many people are being killed. We simply can't continue this way.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2