legalizing all drugs

[PLAYER57832]

This is precisely why many drugs are illegal.. because they cause people to become extreme detriments to society.

Cars can make some people extreme detriments to society, but cars aren't illegal.

They are strictly controlled, which is what controlled substances are.

It shouldn't be up to the government to dictate what someone can and cannot put into their own bodies.

Except hwen what they put into their bodies impacts other people very seriously. This is why there are limits to alchohol use, and to many drugs. (note, I am NOT arguing that all the limits imposed are correct or sensible.. I am saying that limits are needed).

[
The government can analyze, and warn, sure. But leave the, "this is illegal" out of it.

Then, if someone DOES choose to do crime for whatever reason, punish the crime.

There is such a thing as "an ounce of prevention". When a particular substance is heavily tied to crime, then cutting the issue at the source can be more effective than waiting until there is a victim. I absolutely agree it is a touchy issue, that in many cases this argument has been falsely used.. (marihuana, for example), but the argument is valid in some cases (heroine, perhaps).

Also, in many cases we are talking about kids using drugs. I don't think we can leave these choices up to the kdis.. or even, in most cases up to the parents. It is a soceital issue.

I'd bet prisons would be alot less crowded if the only "criminals" were those who committed real crimes, rather than those who were in possession of a substance the government has arbitrarily decided is illegal.

Depends on the drug in question. I am absolutely in favor of legalizing marihuana. Some other drugs might be worth legalizing.
On the other hand, several kids have recently died "near" here from the marihuana "alternative" K something or other.

(Cost Effectiveness of Prison) "Substance-involved people have come to compose a large portion of the prison population. Substance use may play a role in the commission of certain crimes: approximately 16 percent of people in state prison and 18 percent of people in federal prison reported committing their crimes to obtain money for drugs.21 Treatment delivered in the community is one of the most cost-effective ways to prevent such crimes and costs approximately $20,000 less than incarceration per person per year.22 A study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that every dollar spent on drug treatment in the community yields over $18 in cost savings related to crime.23 In comparison, prisons only yield $.37 in public safety benefit per dollar spent. Releasing people to supervision and making treatment accessible is an effective way of reducing problematic drug use, reducing crime associated with drug use and reducing the number of people in prison." Source:
Justice Policy Institute, "How to safely reduce prison populations and support people returning to their communities," (Washington, DC: June 2010), p. 8.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upl ... eRelease...

Treatment does not mean legalization. I am absolutely in favor of better treatment and education options. I just think that for some drugs the penalty bit has to be included.

[(US Drug Prisoners) "The United States leads the world in the number of people incarcerated in federal and state correctional facilities. There are currently more than 2 million people in American prisons or jails. Approximately one-quarter of those people held in U.S. prisons or jails have been convicted of a drug offense. The United States incarcerates more people for drug offenses than any other country. With an estimated 6.8 million Americans struggling with drug abuse or dependence, the growth of the prison population continues to be driven largely by incarceration for drug offenses."
Source:
Justice Policy Institute, "Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety," (Washington, DC: January 2008), p. 1.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upl ... _AC-PS.pdf

[/quote]
The problem with this is that everything is included.. marihuana is calculated right along side meth and heroine. In some cases, alchohol related offenses are included as well. (note sure if it is in this case or not). When you parse the data out, you get a different picture.

The "one-size fits all" approach we have to all crime is a problem in and of itself, but again.. I am not saying our current system is great, I am saying that legalizing everything is not the answer.

[stahrgazer]

Except hwen what they put into their bodies impacts other people very seriously. This is why there are limits to alchohol use, and to many drugs. (note, I am NOT arguing that all the limits imposed are correct or sensible.. I am saying that limits are needed).

The simple act of drinking, or smoking, or whatever, does not impact anyone else.

How it reacts in one's system should not be an excuse for crime, and how it may react in *your* system shouldn't limit what I can or cannot do.

There are no limits at all to alcohol use, you see. None. Not even an alcoholic is committing "a crime" if he or she drinks. (They tried, once, it was called Prohibition and it caused more crimes with bootleg stuff and more deaths with the gang wars - and so does the 'drug war' cause more crimes with bootleg stuff and more deaths with the gang wars.)

So now, "they" merely say, "don't drink and drive." Actually, you can even drink and drive, as long as you don't exceed some limit that changes state to state. Fine. Don't use and drive works for me, or don't exceed some limit that they might set.

Meanwhile, don't get all abusive is a "law" whether one drinks, drugs, or not. Don't steal is a law whether one drinks, drugs, or not.

But there is absolutely no LAW against someone drinking as much as he or she wishes, on their own time; regardless what it does to their bodies.

Similarly, there should be no LAW against someone using whatever as much as he or she wishes, on their own time; regardless what it does to their bodies.

Diabetics aren't prohibited from eating sugar and other "dangerous for them" carbs. It's SUGGESTED that they "don't do that," and that's fine. And that's how it should be about drugs. SUGGEST "don't" all they want - it shouldn't be a crime to do it anyway. Even if it kills them.

And if the commit some real crime to get a fix? THEN nail 'em.

[DoomYoshi]

I just read another great article on this topic:
http://thehumanist.org/march-april-2013/prohibition-humanism/

Some good quotes:

One example of a largely unopposed, overly harsh drug law in the United States is the Higher Education Act’s Aid Elimination Penalty, which states that any individual with a misdemeanor drug offense is to be barred from receiving federal financial aid to attend college. Because of the provision, hundreds of thousands of promising students have been forced to drop out of college because of minor, nonviolent drug offenses. The penalty was introduced in 1998 by Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), a ... this moral crusader left office in 2010 after admitting to an affair with a staffer, lamenting in his resignation speech that he had “sinned against God.”

the Office of National Drug Control Policy estimates that this so-called war cost the U.S. federal government $15 billion, and state governments another $25 billion. Incarceration costs alone can be staggering. In 2011 the State of California spent $45,006 per inmate and approximately 31 percent of all California inmates were booked on drug offenses. To put that into perspective, the state spent $8,667 per college student in the same year. Because of the war on drugs’ mandatory minimum sentencing laws, Americans now comprise 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but 23.4 percent of its prison population.

A 1929 pamphlet distributed by the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment estimated that the total loss of federal tax revenues was $861 million, the equivalent of $108 billion dollars today.

Most anthropologists agree that human drug consumption predates human civilization.

As odd as it might seem, this suggests that humans are actually hardwired to enjoy drug consumption.

Interestingly, the findings of a forty-year-long study funded by the British government paralleled this hypothesis, and found that “very bright” individuals with IQs above 125 were about twice as likely to have tried psychoactive drugs than “very dull” individuals with IQs below 75. As Kanazawa explains, “Intelligent people don’t always do the ‘right’ thing, only the evolutionarily novel thing.”

Schedule-I drugs are generally regarded as the most dangerous, and are classified by the following criteria:

The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Marijuana still remains on the Schedule-I list despite countless studies showing it to be non-addictive, safe for personal consumption, and to have valuable medicinal properties. Other drugs currently labeled as Schedule-I have also shown promising medical value even though their recreational use can be dangerous. MDMA (the primary ingredient in “ecstasy”) has been proven to be an effective means of treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. LSD (“acid”) and psilocybin (or psychedelic mushrooms) have shown potential for use in the treatment of certain psychiatric ailments. Ibogaine (a hallucinogen with psychedelic and dissociative properties) has been proven to cure heroin addiction, and GHB (gamma hydroxybutyrate, a recreational depressant also used as a date-rape drug) is commonly used outside of the United States in the treatment of narcolepsy.

[PLAYER57832]

Except hwen what they put into their bodies impacts other people very seriously. This is why there are limits to alchohol use, and to many drugs. (note, I am NOT arguing that all the limits imposed are correct or sensible.. I am saying that limits are needed).

The simple act of drinking, or smoking, or whatever, does not impact anyone else.

There you go, mixing in drinking and smoking when I already specifically said those operated in different manners.

You started with a decent argument, but now you are going to the "one size penalty doesn't fit all"... "so let's just jump to no regulation". My whole point is that is a false choice, a choice that has been made becuase it suited some interests, but not because it was the biologically, medically or socially best choice (make that set of choices).

How it reacts in one's system should not be an excuse for crime, and how it may react in *your* system shouldn't limit what I can or cannot do.

Again, you are picking your data. I am being specific. A LOT of people can drink alchohol sensibly with almost no effects. Far fewer people can smoke cigarettes. Essentially no one is able to do heroine outside of very controlled situations without very ill effects. The impacts are so serious that its way too easy for people with alterier motives to give it to someone, even without their knowledge or awareness and then have their lives forever changed as a result.

Look at how many people are now addicted to nicotine and how much evidence there is that this was at least in part a situation intentionally created in order to generate profits for some big companies. Look at how the data was even manipulated for years. Individual people just don't have the power or knowlede to combat all that in a supposedly "open and free" market. Freedom is only real when the information presented is required to be honest and real.

Alchohol, marihuana can be used "casually", for "entertanment" or whatever. LSD likely can be, as can some other substances (not getting into the entire littany here).

There are no limits at all to alcohol use, you see. None. Not even an alcoholic is committing "a crime" if he or she drinks. (They tried, once, it was called Prohibition and it caused more crimes with bootleg stuff and more deaths with the gang wars - and so does the 'drug war' cause more crimes with bootleg stuff and more deaths with the gang wars.)

Again, you are ignoring what I said and going on with your own debate. There is a big difference between Heroine and its addictive potential and alchohol. Some have argued even Cocaine is not as addictive as is thought. That may or may not be true, but what I am saying is that the addiction potential is what should decide the law.

So now, "they" merely say, "don't drink and drive." Actually, you can even drink and drive, as long as you don't exceed some limit that changes state to state. Fine. Don't use and drive works for me, or don't exceed some limit that they might set.

Meanwhile, don't get all abusive is a "law" whether one drinks, drugs, or not. Don't steal is a law whether one drinks, drugs, or not.

But there is absolutely no LAW against someone drinking as much as he or she wishes, on their own time; regardless what it does to their bodies.

Again, you are arguing your own point, not mine.

Similarly, there should be no LAW against someone using whatever as much as he or she wishes, on their own time; regardless what it does to their bodies.

Addiction is not something people can control. The problem is that heavy addiction is, to some, nothing more than a great marketing tool.. even if it winds up killing people.

Diabetics aren't prohibited from eating sugar and other "dangerous for them" carbs. It's SUGGESTED that they "don't do that," and that's fine. And that's how it should be about drugs. SUGGEST "don't" all they want - it shouldn't be a crime to do it anyway. Even if it kills them.

Diabetics don't harm other people. There is no direct link between having diabetes and getting into theft and prostitution... unless you count the need to pay for healthcare when they get turned down from insurance.

[Haggis_McMutton]

You folks are missing a major component in this discussion. If drugs were made fully legal, then companies would be eager to give them away in order to hook young, impressionable individuals or those down and out. Once hooked, they will have a gauranteed profit stream.

That is why most of the seriously addictive drugs must be controlled... that, and in some cases the supply is limited by non-market limits. (true limits to ingredients, etc.) Drugs would not be available to people who need them to fight pain or for other legitimate medical needs, only those wanting a fix and willing to do whatever it takes to get the money.

Btw. even if this is all true, surely there are better ways to deal with these problems than banning all but a couple random drugs and declaring an incredibly stupid "drug war" on them.

That is an entirely different debate.
I essentially agree, but simply legalizing everything without limits is not the answer, either.

PS did you have the source referring to relative addictive potentials of nicotene versus other drugs? I have, for example seen statistics quoted saying that nicotene is more addictive than heroine. Yet, I have worked alongside highly addicted individuals who were in situations where they could not get nicotine (boats, backcountry, etc.) and not seen the kinds of medical issues we see with heroine addicts.

No, the link I posted has heroin as the most addictive in all categories. Nicotine is #3 though and the difference between nicotine and cocaine (#2) isn't very big.

Anyway, I realise that it's inherent in the debating process for people to accentuate the differences between their opinions but sometimes I get tired of that. We seem to both agree about the direction in which legislation should move (i.e. more permissive) though perhaps we disagree about exactly how permissive it should be.

I don't have time to read this whole thread. Did you clarify exactly what your position is somewhere? Can you link that? Do you agree that stuff like marijuana, shrooms, LSD which have basically no physical addiction should be legal ?

[xeno]

Decriminalize all of it. That is all.

[PLAYER57832]

You folks are missing a major component in this discussion. If drugs were made fully legal, then companies would be eager to give them away in order to hook young, impressionable individuals or those down and out. Once hooked, they will have a gauranteed profit stream.

That is why most of the seriously addictive drugs must be controlled... that, and in some cases the supply is limited by non-market limits. (true limits to ingredients, etc.) Drugs would not be available to people who need them to fight pain or for other legitimate medical needs, only those wanting a fix and willing to do whatever it takes to get the money.

Btw. even if this is all true, surely there are better ways to deal with these problems than banning all but a couple random drugs and declaring an incredibly stupid "drug war" on them.

That is an entirely different debate.
I essentially agree, but simply legalizing everything without limits is not the answer, either.

PS did you have the source referring to relative addictive potentials of nicotene versus other drugs? I have, for example seen statistics quoted saying that nicotene is more addictive than heroine. Yet, I have worked alongside highly addicted individuals who were in situations where they could not get nicotine (boats, backcountry, etc.) and not seen the kinds of medical issues we see with heroine addicts.

No, the link I posted has heroin as the most addictive in all categories. Nicotine is #3 though and the difference between nicotine and cocaine (#2) isn't very big.

Except, again, the medical response of that addiction is not the same. That is, people who smoke mostly wind up damaging their lungs, killling themselves...and, it turns out harming other people around them. (which is why we have anti-smoking laws).
Chewing tobacco (called "snuff" some places, though "snuff" is actually something different) and snuff don't have quite the societal impact, but are very addictive. Even so, neither is connected to heavy crime... and the reason is not just that tobacco is more available. Like I said, I have been in situations where people have to go without their tobacco. They DO go through withdrawel, but its not life-threatening withdrawel like can be the case for the "hard" drugs. (Even alchohol addiction, in the most severe cases needs medical help to overcome)

Anyway, I realise that it's inherent in the debating process for people to accentuate the differences between their opinions but sometimes I get tired of that. We seem to both agree about the direction in which legislation should move (i.e. more permissive) though perhaps we disagree about exactly how permissive it should be.

Maybe. I am not 100% sure of what your position is.

I don't have time to read this whole thread. Did you clarify exactly what your position is somewhere? Can you link that? Do you agree that stuff like marijuana, shrooms, LSD which have basically no physical addiction should be legal ?

I agree that marijuana, and from what I know of the subject LSD (a little hesitation there, but not worth getting into that full dialogue here) should be legalized. Legalized, but controlled much like cigarettes in where it can be used, who can buy them and so forth (not that tobacco laws have been all that successful).

Heroine and crack cocaine should stay illegal, morphine similarly needs to be controlled.

I don't know enough about most other drugs to really give a complete opinion. For example, I have heard some argument about legalizing cocaine that seem to make sense, but I have also heard some pretty persuasive arguments against legalizing. For me, the measure is how physically addictive a substance is and whether the substance tends to drive people to very negative behavior as a result. I prefer to leave the actual decision to the medical profession, medical data, but my experience is that medicine is often put behind so called "moralistic" arguments. Alchohol is sort of an OK standard, because we all know how it works and its limits. It can be quite dangerous misused, but can be used by many without ill impact. However, the key there, as with any substance potentially legallized is that there HAS to be a good, responsible and accurate educational campaign alongside.

That was not the case for years with tobacco, or marihuana. Tobacco, of course was passed off as "safe" so tobacco companies could fill their pockets. Marihuana, to contrast, was villified, mostly it turns out because hemp and marihuana represented threats to the timber and oil industries. Again, I think alchohol is probably a decent measure.

Rather than a specific set of chemical by chemical set of rules, I think we need to move toward a more general "once you reach this level of addictive potential" type idea, then the laws kick into play. That could be encorporated into general drug testing already required. We still might see problems with new "street-developed" drugs, like that marihuana "substitute" K whatever or the new "bath salts". No system is going to catch everything, nor should that be the standard. Rather, the basic "fix" is education. Teach kids that substances that "seem fun" often come with pretty nasty side effects. Not saying all kids will suddenly listen, but if presented correctly, the message does get through most of the time.

[Lootifer]

A point to note is that many of the really destructive drugs (e.g. meth, crack) would likely dissapear as the new readily available alternatives would likely be consumed in preference to them (i.e. why take meth when you can take MDMA?).

[MegaProphet]

A point to note is that many of the really destructive drugs (e.g. meth, crack) would likely dissapear as the new readily available alternatives would likely be consumed in preference to them (i.e. why take meth when you can take MDMA?).

Because not everyone takes these drugs just to get high, if one is looking to treat shift work sleep disorder or to lose weight methamphetamine is the better choice.

[Lootifer]

A point to note is that many of the really destructive drugs (e.g. meth, crack) would likely dissapear as the new readily available alternatives would likely be consumed in preference to them (i.e. why take meth when you can take MDMA?).

Because not everyone takes these drugs just to get high, if one is looking to treat shift work sleep disorder or to lose weight methamphetamine is the better choice.

Not the meth that is cooked up from cold medicine.

You'd take some derivative that is specialised and "designed" to treat your issue. You are unlikely to go for the cooked-up-from-cold-medicine meth that your local trainwreck is hooked on.

If I was looking for a stimulant that kept me awake or to lose weight, I would definitely opt for the least addictive of the available options.

[PLAYER57832]

A point to note is that many of the really destructive drugs (e.g. meth, crack) would likely dissapear as the new readily available alternatives would likely be consumed in preference to them (i.e. why take meth when you can take MDMA?).

Because if these things are fully legal, without limits, then some nice gentlemen will be more than happy to pass out free samples... until you become addicted.

That is pretty much what happened with tobacco, just to discount the argument that "this would never happen".

[PLAYER57832]

A point to note is that many of the really destructive drugs (e.g. meth, crack) would likely dissapear as the new readily available alternatives would likely be consumed in preference to them (i.e. why take meth when you can take MDMA?).

Because not everyone takes these drugs just to get high, if one is looking to treat shift work sleep disorder or to lose weight methamphetamine is the better choice.

Not the meth that is cooked up from cold medicine.

You'd take some derivative that is specialised and "designed" to treat your issue. You are unlikely to go for the cooked-up-from-cold-medicine meth that your local trainwreck is hooked on.

If I was looking for a stimulant that kept me awake or to lose weight, I would definitely opt for the least addictive of the available options.

The only part of your argument that is truly valid is that the process for making meth is inherently dangerous, and if other sources were more readily available, they might be utilized.

However, even that misses a few pertinent issues. Other forms of drugs are available today.. people still choose to try and blow up their homes.

[Lootifer]

A point to note is that many of the really destructive drugs (e.g. meth, crack) would likely dissapear as the new readily available alternatives would likely be consumed in preference to them (i.e. why take meth when you can take MDMA?).

Because if these things are fully legal, without limits, then some nice gentlemen will be more than happy to pass out free samples... until you become addicted.

That is pretty much what happened with tobacco, just to discount the argument that "this would never happen".

I never said dont tax the bajeebus outta them; especially ones that show very strong demerit (in the economic sense) properties. Drugs that are more addictive should be taxed at a higher rate to disincentivise people buying them (accounting for the market failure caused by addictive behaviour).

[TA1LGUNN3R]

A point to note is that many of the really destructive drugs (e.g. meth, crack) would likely dissapear as the new readily available alternatives would likely be consumed in preference to them (i.e. why take meth when you can take MDMA?).

Because if these things are fully legal, without limits, then some nice gentlemen will be more than happy to pass out free samples... until you become addicted.

That is pretty much what happened with tobacco, just to discount the argument that "this would never happen".

I never said dont tax the bajeebus outta them; especially ones that show very strong demerit (in the economic sense) properties. Drugs that are more addictive should be taxed at a higher rate to disincentivise people buying them (accounting for the market failure caused by addictive behaviour).

Wouldn't this just reinforce another black market where people can go to buy the same drugs without the added expense of a tax, thereby negating one of the main reasons to legalize drugs in the first place?

-TG

[MegaProphet]

A point to note is that many of the really destructive drugs (e.g. meth, crack) would likely dissapear as the new readily available alternatives would likely be consumed in preference to them (i.e. why take meth when you can take MDMA?).

Because not everyone takes these drugs just to get high, if one is looking to treat shift work sleep disorder or to lose weight methamphetamine is the better choice.

Not the meth that is cooked up from cold medicine.

You'd take some derivative that is specialised and "designed" to treat your issue. You are unlikely to go for the cooked-up-from-cold-medicine meth that your local trainwreck is hooked on.

If I was looking for a stimulant that kept me awake or to lose weight, I would definitely opt for the least addictive of the available options.

Yes, of course one would or at least should only use pharmaceutical grade methamphetamine in this scenario

[Lootifer]

A point to note is that many of the really destructive drugs (e.g. meth, crack) would likely dissapear as the new readily available alternatives would likely be consumed in preference to them (i.e. why take meth when you can take MDMA?).

Because if these things are fully legal, without limits, then some nice gentlemen will be more than happy to pass out free samples... until you become addicted.

That is pretty much what happened with tobacco, just to discount the argument that "this would never happen".

I never said dont tax the bajeebus outta them; especially ones that show very strong demerit (in the economic sense) properties. Drugs that are more addictive should be taxed at a higher rate to disincentivise people buying them (accounting for the market failure caused by addictive behaviour).

Wouldn't this just reinforce another black market where people can go to buy the same drugs without the added expense of a tax, thereby negating one of the main reasons to legalize drugs in the first place?

-TG

This is a contentious issue; but I believe that the price an illegally run entity can offer to the consumer will be higher than that of a legally run entity + taxes. Drugs dont actually cost a lot to make; running a sustainable bootleg operation does however.

[BigBallinStalin]

TG, it depends on how high the price becomes due to the tax.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Makes sense. Lootifer specifically said ''tax the bajeebus outta them," which led me to ask the question. I often see a real life situation that is similar.

Oregon doesn't have a sales tax, and I live very close to the Cali border. Californians often make special trips here to Costco, Wal Mart, etc. I worked in retail for a few years and would see Californians buy furniture and groceries often in the 500-1000 dollar range, saving a few hundred bucks altogether. And the sales tax in Cali is only like, 10%?

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, after a comparison of relative prices becomes realized, people will seek substitutes. If the third law of demand holds, then the suppliers of those substitutes will produce drugs of higher potency--in order to compensate for the increased costs of illegal production. It would be 'more bang for your buck' production.

So, how can the government get that price right? Will they also recalibrate the price in conjunction with the various prices of illegal meth in those numerous markets across the nation?
So now the policymaker has to address the knowledge problem which is compounded by the central planner's not facing profit and loss incentives. (I'd be surprised if they did, but knowing the political process, I don't expect much).

[Lootifer]

Yeah, after a comparison of relative prices becomes realized, people will seek substitutes. If the third law of demand holds, then the suppliers of those substitutes will produce drugs of higher potency--in order to compensate for the increased costs of illegal production. It would be 'more bang for your buck' production.

So, how can the government get that price right? Will they also recalibrate the price in conjunction with the various prices of illegal meth in those numerous markets across the nation?
So now the policymaker has to address the knowledge problem which is compounded by the central planner's not facing profit and loss incentives. (I'd be surprised if they did, but knowing the political process, I don't expect much).

Well obviously the best answer is to move to an islanded state; silly cross border problems!

I dont think they have a huge problem here though (in this hypothetical) as people are facing a legal/illegal dilemma rather than just a locational one.

Imagine, in your example TG, how different be the border issue be, if not only did they have to cross the state line to shop, but it was also illegal to cross the border and shop out of state? Even if it was mostly un-enforcable you would likely see a significant drop in cross border purchasing. Im sure BBS has a fancy name for this; but I see it as a kind of apathy - breaking the law is just too much hard work/risk for most people.

Its not just illegal operation costs that the bad guys would have to overcome; its brand (people would rather buy off legitimate sources) and a huge amount of legislative risk (they manage to become price competitive due to excess taxes... Boom, regulators drop taxes and price illegal activity out of the market). To me, as long as you're not completely retarded, heavily regulated "drug" industry would be pretty easy to manage (compared to the two counterfactuals of completely fee, and status quo).

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, after a comparison of relative prices becomes realized, people will seek substitutes. If the third law of demand holds, then the suppliers of those substitutes will produce drugs of higher potency--in order to compensate for the increased costs of illegal production. It would be 'more bang for your buck' production.

So, how can the government get that price right? Will they also recalibrate the price in conjunction with the various prices of illegal meth in those numerous markets across the nation?
So now the policymaker has to address the knowledge problem which is compounded by the central planner's not facing profit and loss incentives. (I'd be surprised if they did, but knowing the political process, I don't expect much).

Well obviously the best answer is to move to an islanded state; silly cross border problems!

I dont think they have a huge problem here though (in this hypothetical) as people are facing a legal/illegal dilemma rather than just a locational one.

Imagine, in your example TG, how different be the border issue be, if not only did they have to cross the state line to shop, but it was also illegal to cross the border and shop out of state? Even if it was mostly un-enforcable you would likely see a significant drop in cross border purchasing. Im sure BBS has a fancy name for this; but I see it as a kind of apathy - breaking the law is just too much hard work/risk for most people.

Its not just illegal operation costs that the bad guys would have to overcome; its brand (people would rather buy off legitimate sources) and a huge amount of legislative risk (they manage to become price competitive due to excess taxes... Boom, regulators drop taxes and price illegal activity out of the market). To me, as long as you're not completely retarded, heavily regulated "drug" industry would be pretty easy to manage (compared to the two counterfactuals of completely fee, and status quo).

Legal drugs face similar problems already, and they need not be taxed heavily since their prices are already high.

Apparently, the regulators can't even resolve this problem, yet we should assume that they'd be able to resolve other problems from implementing practically the same policies (e.g. if the price is high, then problems solved)?

[Lootifer]

Eh I dont assume the FDA can solve anything. But mainly because I understand it to be a circle jerk of opacity and corruption.

[saxitoxin]

Eh I dont assume the FDA can solve anything. But mainly because I understand it to be a circle jerk of opacity and corruption.

I've found that, if you end up in a circle jerk, it's generally preferable it have a high level of opacity.

[Lootifer]

Eh I dont assume the FDA can solve anything. But mainly because I understand it to be a circle jerk of opacity and corruption.

I've found that, if you end up in a circle jerk, it's generally preferable it have a high level of opacity.

We play a game here in NZ (you guys might play it too, not sure and dont want to google it) called fridge boxes.

Its like a fully no-homo way to watch porn in the lounge with your mates.

[Lil_SlimShady]

Eh I dont assume the FDA can solve anything. But mainly because I understand it to be a circle jerk of opacity and corruption.

I've found that, if you end up in a circle jerk, it's generally preferable it have a high level of opacity.

We play a game here in NZ (you guys might play it too, not sure and dont want to google it) called fridge boxes.

Its like a fully no-homo way to watch porn in the lounge with your mates.

No. No we don't.