legalizing all drugs

[betiko]

no, you haven't read my position corectly. what I said is that you really love chicken and right now given the price of chicken you can afford 18 pounds; if tomorrow price is divied by 10, you will probably buy 27-36 pounds of chicken. Also we are trying to see drug addicts as rational people, that's a fail!

Okay. Is a change in price the only thing that motivates people to change their current consumption habits?

it's not. but a lot of poor people buy little meat because they can't afford more, if they had all the money in the world there would be a break even point in their consumption. The break even point for drug users could be quite dangerous and excessive.
Other factors would be in the ballance of course, but after all rational factors would be difficult tu measure, but the more you consume the more you are addicted and so on.

[betiko]

I am skeptical, drug laws did not always exist, they were created by societies with legal drugs for their own reasons. Until just several decades ago, one could legally buy opium and laudinum, highly addictive substances that can cause severe side effects. Opiod addiction has been well documented; the withdrawal symptoms are debilitating, and in some cases can lead to seizures, strokes, heart attacks, or even death. One cannot reasonably say these people can manage to budget themselves, and reasonably control their urges at these points on physical and psychological breakdown.

People naturally want to try new things if they're available, and while I don't really care is people want to try out a bit of booze, cigarettes, or pot; experimenting with hard drugs can have horrible consequences, so I don't to see a world where "you don't know unless you try it" is said causally about PCP.

I am also concerned about the production ramifications. If we are to compare marijuana to tobacco, then one should know that the tobacco industry facilitates mass deforestation to keep up with demands and turn a profit. Brazil alone uses an estimated 60 million trees a year in cigarette manufacture.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3992

Additionally, with such a profitable industry, banana republic dictators and global corporations would likely be incentivized to allocate much needed farmland to drugs. European landgrabs in African nations are already destroying the livelihoods and environments of locals in order to secure a supply of biofuels; do we really need vast poppy fields to make the problem worse while the world struggles to keep up with food demands?
http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0829-foe_ ... frica.html

well that's why I think there should be a huge government control and tons of money spent in prevention and cure of addicts instead of spending much more in drug wars.
Let's say your daddy tells you he'd be highly disapointed in you if you go to slutty's party and drink & drive on the way back and gives you all the reasons and examples around you of people who died or are in a wheel chair for doing so. He still gives you free will and all the elements to take the right decision. He will still support you if you end up in a wheelchair even if you didn't listen. He's just making you responsible.
Right now governments might not be doing all they can to prevent drug use, they are more into punishing drug users and dealers. Not sure it's a better method.
Also if societies have banned drugs it might be for a good reason, but doesn't mean the means put in place are the best solution, as you can see the entire system isn't working great.
Why would people try more if drugs were legal? do you think that there is that much people not doing drugs just because they can't find any or because they are unwilling to do something illegal?

by the way have you seen the film project nim? about the life of a chimp on which scientists conducted experiments in the 70s. At some point he got addicted to booze and pot, so getting high is not something only about human nature.

Otherwise the idea is not to increase worldwide production, but hopefully to get it decrease in long term..

[BigBallinStalin]

no, you haven't read my position corectly. what I said is that you really love chicken and right now given the price of chicken you can afford 18 pounds; if tomorrow price is divied by 10, you will probably buy 27-36 pounds of chicken. Also we are trying to see drug addicts as rational people, that's a fail!

Okay. Is a change in price the only thing that motivates people to change their current consumption habits?

it's not. but a lot of poor people buy little meat because they can't afford more, if they had all the money in the world there would be a break even point in their consumption. The break even point for drug users could be quite dangerous and excessive.
Other factors would be in the ballance of course, but after all rational factors would be difficult tu measure, but the more you consume the more you are addicted and so on.

Right, a "break even point." In other words, there is some unknown quantity at which the felt uneasiness of not having a good is satisfied. Given a specific income, individuals allocate it and other resources among various goods at various quantities--depending on the prices of these goods and their proportional preferences for these goods. However their apportioning this income depends on the opportunity cost of each purchase. For example, if I wish to purchase $100 of cocaine (quantity = 100 grams), then my opportunity cost would be the value of whatever else I could have purchased with that $100 at the time of that decision.

The problem is that we do not know exactly the opportunity costs of these individuals, nor do we know their future changes in consumption given a price change. In other words, future subjective values can't be graphed. That's one of my points here, yet you presume that we do know.

Second, that "break even point" can already be attained by many individuals--even given a high price of the good they desire (e.g. cocaine in black markets). In order to afford the price, the individual would decrease expenditures in other areas (e.g. food, housing, whatever). So, this problem which you're concerned about is already occurring--even in the prohibition. One unintended consequence of prohibition is that these consumers will incur more costs (e.g. less food, housing, whatever) since they forego higher levels of consuming these goods in order to secure more income for paying that higher price of illegal cocaine.

With legalization, the price drops, and "the break even point" still remains, yet more income is freed up for other valuable uses (more food, housing, whatever). It isn't always the case that people would consume MORE of the illegal drug. We should also realize that the freeing up of more income enables consumers to not reduce expenditures on non-drug goods. It's an additional benefit, thanks to legalization.


And, the problems of addiction and misuse can still be addressed even with drugs being legalized. Certain drugs can become "over the counter," and/or new research into previously illegal drugs can allow for innovation. For example, maybe we could develop cocaine without the harmful side-effects---thanks to their production and testing being legal, as well as being open to a much larger market.

[/]

I am also concerned about the production ramifications. If we are to compare marijuana to tobacco, then one should know that the tobacco industry facilitates mass deforestation to keep up with demands and turn a profit. Brazil alone uses an estimated 60 million trees a year in cigarette manufacture.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3992

Additionally, with such a profitable industry, banana republic dictators and global corporations would likely be incentivized to allocate much needed farmland to drugs. European landgrabs in African nations are already destroying the livelihoods and environments of locals in order to secure a supply of biofuels; do we really need vast poppy fields to make the problem worse while the world struggles to keep up with food demands?
http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0829-foe_ ... frica.html

What is the future price and profitability of all illegal drugs?

Amazingly, you presume to know this, and that more forests would have to cleared to produce it.

Cannot lesser valuable agricultural lands be converted from whatever to newly legalized goods?

If the OP is correct, it's one of the largest industries in the world, do you think this would change if it were legalized?
Perhaps if the global farm industry actually used farmland in the most efficient manner possible, unfortunately it does not; farmland usage has steadily been increasing at a rate greater than population growth.
Afghanistan still has not obtained food security, but rather than doing what is logically necessary to help the country as a whole by using what little water they have to grow food crops, many farmers do what they can to ensure they themselves have money to feed themselves and their families by farming poppies to make opium.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/world ... -says.html

[BigBallinStalin]

I am also concerned about the production ramifications. If we are to compare marijuana to tobacco, then one should know that the tobacco industry facilitates mass deforestation to keep up with demands and turn a profit. Brazil alone uses an estimated 60 million trees a year in cigarette manufacture.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3992

Additionally, with such a profitable industry, banana republic dictators and global corporations would likely be incentivized to allocate much needed farmland to drugs. European landgrabs in African nations are already destroying the livelihoods and environments of locals in order to secure a supply of biofuels; do we really need vast poppy fields to make the problem worse while the world struggles to keep up with food demands?
http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0829-foe_ ... frica.html

What is the future price and profitability of all illegal drugs?

Amazingly, you presume to know this, and that more forests would have to cleared to produce it.

Cannot lesser valuable agricultural lands be converted from whatever to newly legalized goods?

If the OP is correct, it's one of the largest industries in the world, do you think this would change if it were legalized?
Perhaps if the global farm industry actually used farmland in the most efficient manner possible, unfortunately it does not; farmland usage has steadily been increasing at a rate greater than population growth.
Afghanistan still has not obtained food security, but rather than doing what is logically necessary to help the country as a whole by using what little water they have to grow food crops, many farmers do what they can to ensure they themselves have money to feed themselves and their families by farming poppies to make opium.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/world ... -says.html

Prices for illegal drugs, such as cocaine, heroine, etc. are high because the operating costs are high, risk is high, and blah blah blah. I think we can agree on that.

What happens when legal competition enters these markets? What happens when contracts can be resolved through courts instead of shooting people? What happens when entrepreneurs don't have to worry about being shot by police or their competitors for simply producing a certain good?

I'd expect the prices to fall because supply would increase, and demand would remain relatively the same--perhaps slightly higher, and maybe even revert back to normal. Still prices would fall. And, yes, the industry would undoubtedly change. Why wouldn't it--given the above outcomes?

Productivity in agricultural lands has been increasing, and prices allow consumers and suppliers to appropriate adjust their consumption, find substitutes, innovate, reduce costs/waste, etc., so I'm not worried about most of your concerns.

Price of poppy in AFG drops since the supply increases, thus the profitability of opium production decreases. This encourages production into more valuable/profitable uses of land--whatever that may be.

[betiko]

I am also concerned about the production ramifications. If we are to compare marijuana to tobacco, then one should know that the tobacco industry facilitates mass deforestation to keep up with demands and turn a profit. Brazil alone uses an estimated 60 million trees a year in cigarette manufacture.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3992

Additionally, with such a profitable industry, banana republic dictators and global corporations would likely be incentivized to allocate much needed farmland to drugs. European landgrabs in African nations are already destroying the livelihoods and environments of locals in order to secure a supply of biofuels; do we really need vast poppy fields to make the problem worse while the world struggles to keep up with food demands?
http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0829-foe_ ... frica.html

What is the future price and profitability of all illegal drugs?

Amazingly, you presume to know this, and that more forests would have to cleared to produce it.

Cannot lesser valuable agricultural lands be converted from whatever to newly legalized goods?

If the OP is correct, it's one of the largest industries in the world, do you think this would change if it were legalized?
Perhaps if the global farm industry actually used farmland in the most efficient manner possible, unfortunately it does not; farmland usage has steadily been increasing at a rate greater than population growth.
Afghanistan still has not obtained food security, but rather than doing what is logically necessary to help the country as a whole by using what little water they have to grow food crops, many farmers do what they can to ensure they themselves have money to feed themselves and their families by farming poppies to make opium.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/world ... -says.html

well this is pretty straight forward. Accoding to the classic economist David Ricardo there is the theory of the comparative advantage. One country should specialize in what he does best. If it's opium in afghanistan and that it's run by taliban druglords and its traffic is illegal.... AND the opium money is reinjected in djihad and buying weapons (#1 economy) The comparative advantage is quite largely compromized by a few factors that could be solved by legalization and non-corrupted government control.

[/]

I am skeptical, drug laws did not always exist, they were created by societies with legal drugs for their own reasons. Until just several decades ago, one could legally buy opium and laudinum, highly addictive substances that can cause severe side effects. Opiod addiction has been well documented; the withdrawal symptoms are debilitating, and in some cases can lead to seizures, strokes, heart attacks, or even death. One cannot reasonably say these people can manage to budget themselves, and reasonably control their urges at these points on physical and psychological breakdown.

People naturally want to try new things if they're available, and while I don't really care is people want to try out a bit of booze, cigarettes, or pot; experimenting with hard drugs can have horrible consequences, so I don't to see a world where "you don't know unless you try it" is said causally about PCP.

I am also concerned about the production ramifications. If we are to compare marijuana to tobacco, then one should know that the tobacco industry facilitates mass deforestation to keep up with demands and turn a profit. Brazil alone uses an estimated 60 million trees a year in cigarette manufacture.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3992

Additionally, with such a profitable industry, banana republic dictators and global corporations would likely be incentivized to allocate much needed farmland to drugs. European landgrabs in African nations are already destroying the livelihoods and environments of locals in order to secure a supply of biofuels; do we really need vast poppy fields to make the problem worse while the world struggles to keep up with food demands?
http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0829-foe_ ... frica.html

well that's why I think there should be a huge government control and tons of money spent in prevention and cure of addicts instead of spending much more in drug wars.
Let's say your daddy tells you he'd be highly disapointed in you if you go to slutty's party and drink & drive on the way back and gives you all the reasons and examples around you of people who died or are in a wheel chair for doing so. He still gives you free will and all the elements to take the right decision. He will still support you if you end up in a wheelchair even if you didn't listen. He's just making you responsible.
Right now governments might not be doing all they can to prevent drug use, they are more into punishing drug users and dealers. Not sure it's a better method.
Also if societies have banned drugs it might be for a good reason, but doesn't mean the means put in place are the best solution, as you can see the entire system isn't working great.
Why would people try more if drugs were legal? do you think that there is that much people not doing drugs just because they can't find any or because they are unwilling to do something illegal?

by the way have you seen the film project nim? about the life of a chimp on which scientists conducted experiments in the 70s. At some point he got addicted to booze and pot, so getting high is not something only about human nature.

Otherwise the idea is not to increase worldwide production, but hopefully to get it decrease in long term..

Fair points. Still I think more people want things if they know they can obtain them, even more so if the consequences aren't seen as too harsh.
You and most other adults have probably smoked a cigarette, or drank a beer, why? Partially because of the allure of the forbidden, or the curiosity of a new experience?
And why not try it? You can probably walk right into *insert french drug store here* and pick up a pack, you've seen people drinking and smoking, if they get to try it, why shouldn't you?
Now if cocaine was the same, people at the bar sitting there snorting up without anyone giving a second thought, you feel like the Mormon guy who never tried coffee, can you honestly say you wouldn't try it once?
Also what if cigarettes/drinking was as heavily banned as hard drugs, would you drive down to the seedy part of town, walk up to the guy in the trech-coat and sunglasses in the middle of night, follow him into an alley and ask him for a light out of curiosity?

[BigBallinStalin]

Since sex without payment of money is legal, can you can bring your girlfriend to T.G.I Friday's and bang her on the table?
( It's a family restaurant, sir.)

If you roll into a bar--extremely drunk, chances are you'll get kicked out, even though drinking alcohol is legal.

[/]

Prices for illegal drugs, such as cocaine, heroine, etc. are high because the operating costs are high, risk is high, and blah blah blah. I think we can agree on that.

What happens when legal competition enters these markets? What happens when contracts can be resolved through courts instead of shooting people? What happens when entrepreneurs don't have to worry about being shot by police or their competitors for simply producing a certain good?

I'd expect the prices to fall because supply would increase, and demand would remain relatively the same--perhaps slightly higher, and maybe even revert back to normal. Still prices would fall. And, yes, the industry would undoubtedly change. Why wouldn't it--given the above outcomes?

Productivity in agricultural lands has been increasing, and prices allow consumers and suppliers to appropriate adjust their consumption, find substitutes, innovate, reduce costs/waste, etc., so I'm not worried about most of your concerns.

Price of poppy in AFG drops since the supply increases, thus the profitability of opium production decreases. This encourages production into more valuable/profitable uses of land--whatever that may be.

Ah, I understand. I will concede the point of negative agricultural aspects of a legal drug trade (despite so many "legal" forms of slavery and exploitation being used in much of the world, a legal way to combat those problems is preferable.)

However, while I agree with betiko that a system of education and understanding is a great way to combat drug use, bans are shown to be effective against the socially negative effects of alcohol when implemented properly.
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/alcoho ... dHarms.pdf

Effects of Alcohol Bans in Isolated Communities
All of the studies that evaluated the effect of bans in
isolated northern communities found substantial reductions in alcohol-related harms with the exception of
suicide.

In the communities that instituted
bans, rates of harm indicated by alcohol-related medical
visits were reduced by 9.0% for injury deaths to 82% for
alcohol-related medical visits. One of
these studies found that the effects were reversed when
the ban was lifted, and found similar benefits when the
ban was then reimposed.

Two of these studies
suggest that bans on alcohol sales in isolated communities
led residents to decrease their use of other intoxicants. In
Barrow, Alaska, medical visits for use of isopropyl alcohol
declined during ban periods.An additional study qualitatively evaluated a Canadian Inuit community that overwhelmingly voted to ban alcohol in 1978. Although comparative data are not available from this study (and the study thus does
not meet review inclusion criteria), it is notable that
during the 3 years following the implementation of
this prohibition there were only five arrests for the
illegal possession of alcohol and, of these, four were
associated with a single incident. The reported reduction in alcohol consumption in general and among youth
in particular was linked with several societal benefits,
including improved mental and physical health among
community members, and a reduction in conflicts within
the community. The ban on alcohol sales was associated
with a reduction in the use of other substances of abuse
(e.g., inhalants) by youth.
...
Summary
The effectiveness of bans in reducing alcohol-related
harms appears to be highly dependent on the availability of alcohol in the surrounding area. In isolated
communities, bans can substantially reduce alcoholrelated harms. However, where alcohol is available in
areas nearby those with bans, travel between these areas
may lead to serious harms.

I still hold that if the sources of illegal drugs could be eliminated, it would have the best overall effect on society.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, that may be okay, but your position is only wishful thinking when it's applied to nearly everyone else. With me, I prefer the benefits and costs of living in a freer society, which would enable people to discovery their own solutions through trial-and-error. We have to acknowledge that the good intentions of public officials has caused an unnecessary, international war against black market buyers and sellers, imposed great costs on individuals by imprisoning so many people and by wasting their prime years, has induced an impetus toward more crime, and has forced those in the black market to enforce contracts through needless violence and death.

Given the consequences of the Prohibition Era, the ongoing repercussions of current prohibitions, and the inherent constraints of imperfect government, we must end prohibition and seek other solutions. That's the more practical and beneficial stance for society.
(If anyone disagrees, then they must justify all the unintended consequences. Good luck.)

[Haggis_McMutton]

Government has no business telling me what I can put in my body. Government is not my dad.

Is your philosophy conditional or consistent? That is, does it only apply to people wearing tie-dye shirts named Sunchild? i.e. ...

- Do you support legalizing marijuana?

- Do you support legalizing pills made by Pfizer out of Bleach, Paint Thinner and Ginseng, sold for $1000 each and marketed as a cure for cancer?

This isn't a loaded question; I don't have an opinion either way.

Interesting point, but we're already flooded with homeopathic medicine, healing crystal dildos and what not so yeah, I'd support legalization of both.

The potential cancer cure would not get FDA approval and therefore, would probably not get used much except by rich fucks who want to blow their fortune on trying to live a couple years more (untill their descendants sue the company for enticing their rich parents to blow their money on false promises anyway).

[saxitoxin]

Government has no business telling me what I can put in my body. Government is not my dad.

Is your philosophy conditional or consistent? That is, does it only apply to people wearing tie-dye shirts named Sunchild? i.e. ...

- Do you support legalizing marijuana?

- Do you support legalizing pills made by Pfizer out of Bleach, Paint Thinner and Ginseng, sold for $1000 each and marketed as a cure for cancer?

This isn't a loaded question; I don't have an opinion either way.

Interesting point, but we're already flooded with homeopathic medicine, healing crystal dildos and what not so yeah, I'd support legalization of both.

The potential cancer cure would not get FDA approval and therefore, would probably not get used much except by rich fucks who want to blow their fortune on trying to live a couple years more (untill their descendants sue the company for enticing their rich parents to blow their money on false promises anyway).

FDA approval? Why would Pfizer, Merck, et. al. submit their drugs to the FDA approval process? If drugs were legal they could just put them directly onto store shelves and save themselves millions having to prove safety in clinical trials. I don't understand how the FDA still exists in this scenario.

(Maybe you want to maintain the FDA approval process but have like a Rave Exemption where therapeutic standards get waived if the manufacturer has a letter from a club promoter?)

[Haggis_McMutton]

FDA approval? Why would Pfizer, Merck, et. al. submit their drugs to the FDA approval process? If drugs were legal they could just put them directly onto store shelves and save themselves millions having to prove safety in clinical trials. I don't understand how the FDA still exists in this scenario.

(Maybe you want to maintain the FDA approval process but have like a Rave Exemption where therapeutic standards get waived if the manufacturer has a letter from a club promoter?)

I'm re-imagining the FDA as an organization that tests drugs and gives their approval to those least likely to kill you.
It would not have the power to stop Pfizer, Merck, et. al. from selling their drug but the lack of the FDA approval stamp would mean that people would be reticent to use it and, specifically, doctors would be liable if they prescribed a non-FDA approved drug over an FDA approved drug without good reason.

Of course it isn't necessary for this role to be taken by the FDA. You could have private institutions take on the role of the FDA in this scenario.

I can already see the commercials now "guy takes anti-hairloss drug, guy becomes bald overweight and impotent, big red cross is superimposed on image of newly suicidal guy, announcer says 'This can be you if you buy non [insert name here] approved drugs, is it really worth the risk?' end scene"

[AAFitz]

I'm cool with it. At the same time I don't have kids that I'm overly protective of so what does my opinion matter. If they started selling heroin at your local cvs house moms all over the us would literally lose their shit

what's the difference, drugs would still be frowned upon by society, and I think your argument doesn't stand as I think kids would be a lot safer. If someone wants to do drugs he will always be able to find a way. Drug wars are a lost cause and this seems like the only solution.

Also, take morocco for example. I know Canabis represents over 10% of it's GNP and it's an underground economy. Wouldn't it be better if the government could manage those profits and reinvest in education, infrastructures or whatever?

You'd have to be on drugs to compare heroin, crack, and meth to canabis.

[AAFitz]

Hey, that may be okay, but your position is only wishful thinking when it's applied to nearly everyone else. With me, I prefer the benefits and costs of living in a freer society, which would enable people to discovery their own solutions through trial-and-error. We have to acknowledge that the good intentions of public officials has caused an unnecessary, international war against black market buyers and sellers, imposed great costs on individuals by imprisoning so many people and by wasting their prime years, has induced an impetus toward more crime, and has forced those in the black market to enforce contracts through needless violence and death.

Given the consequences of the Prohibition Era, the ongoing repercussions of current prohibitions, and the inherent constraints of imperfect government, we must end prohibition and seek other solutions. That's the more practical and beneficial stance for society.
(If anyone disagrees, then they must justify all the unintended consequences. Good luck.)

You must not justify the unintended consequences in order to disagree. It is not the ban on drugs that is the problem, but the ineffective ban on them. What you would justify is many, many more lives destroyed by drugs that have no business existing in the first place. The fact that you are too shortsighted to see that it very much could be controlled better, does not justify your position, its just a cop out, and a ridiculously naive one at that.