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 |
posted
(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 |
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 |
posted
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 |
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 |
posted
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
posted
""""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 |
posted
" 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 |
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.
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 |
posted
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 |
posted
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 |
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 |
posted
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 |
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 |
posted
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 |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
