I always think about harm reduction, and how folly it is to relinquish control of something as destructive and dangerous as heavy narcotics to an anarchist black market environment, especially when the damage this has done is so plain to see.. The worse case scenario is what we have now.
Last edited by marduc; 04-02-10 at 03:51 PM.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse
2) If the US decides to make narcotics legal then the remainder in the country will soon dry up. Or is the US government gonna start pumping out all these drugs for the addicts so we don't have to purchase from the cartel anymore? So which is it? Sounds like the US government and the cartels are going to have a dual partnership in drug distribution, huh? But nooooo those cartels will disappear once the US government makes narcotics legal. Dumb ass!
'In Hoc Signo Vinces'
Yes, for the benift of the US and Mexico.
Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb
There's no chance in hell this would ever become legal if the government couldn't tax it. That's why marijuana is taking so long in legalization is because they cant figure out a way to tax it.(which i support legal marijuana)
So the government cant even figure out how to legalize a weed that grows out of the damn ground!?
'In Hoc Signo Vinces'
Bull****! We are going to assume (and for a very good reason), that the demand for drugs will not increase in a substantial enough manner to influence price. Why? Because i do not buy cocaine, and it being legal will not increase my desire to do so. The deterrence from cocaine (even to the rational addict ) is the negative physical effects from -should we say- overindulgence.... Unless of course you can come up with a compelling argument that demand will shift greatly in the presence of legalization; if not..... That eliminates demand.1) Prices on the remainder of narcotics still sitting in the US will skyrocket. coke, heroin, weed, ecstasy, meth, will be in an alarming demand. The street level dealers will be even more aggressive which will then lead to a rise in violent crimes, and turf wars.
Supply on the other hand.... Well you already implied an inventory concept; so we have extremely short term supply covered. Now.... in order for the price to actually increase we would need a supply determinant both in the form of distributed knowledge (knowing that your producer has for some reason decided not to produce) and less and less producers forgoing assured profits (because the drug addicts still want to do drugs ) by shutting down production.
So do tell how and why the drug supply suddenly stops from South America, through Mexico, and into the US. You see; i am ever so curious because i learned long ago that prohibition was a supply determinant (negative). Lifting this determinant has a positive shift for supply. Even in markets where goods are inelastic (changes in price do not have an "equal effect" on quantity demanded), shifting supply does in fact lower price (eventually).
So with your bogus statement debunked, we shall refer to any future instances to my statement above. Unless of course you have an adequate rebuttal.
You have yet to explain how supply is suddenly "choked off" by legalization.2) When the street level dealers supply runs out (which wont take long), The coke addicts will be hit the hardest during this "narcotics transition". The coke addicts will then have to resort to crystal meth, and once the meth addiction takes hold amongst the former coke heads then you can pretty much write them off.(RIP) With the sudden demand in meth we will then see a rise in meth labs which will then add a 50% markup on meth itself. So the coke dealers are now in the meth game and we all know what meth labs do to communities around the nation.
See above.3) Ecstasy "addicts" (which are few and far between) Will just have to do without their party favors for awhile. Or at least til Phizer starts pumping out Ecstacy for all the rave kids. Worst case they will resort to pharmaceuticals which will also put a rise in crime. (Anytime addicts and it's dealers are forced to shift to new drugs and new sellers there's always a spike in crime.)
As in all cases, supply will shift.4) Pot heads will now depend on the US growers for their supply which will inevitably raise the price on marijuana. Being that pot growers have always been harvesting a large portion of the countries marijuana this wont be to harsh of a transition. I'm still baffled that the Mexican cartels found a market for a drug that we can grow and grow much better. (Whether or not the law clamps down on "legal illegal" pot growers during this time is a good question)
It is still based on the assumption of bogus supply.5) Heroin addicts will experience the easiest of these transitions. Luckily for them they will have access to the methadone clinics which will fill the void in their fix. The fact that most heroin comes from Europe we will then see a major spike in east coast crime and competition for turf. Street level dealers in Baltimore and Philadelphia will be hit the hardest. Most of these dealers major income come from the heroin trade. Their minor income comes from cocaine. Once these two drugs are no longer available they will more that likely enter the meth trade. This transition will be particularly dicey because of the outlaw biker gangs notorious grip on east coast meth. No these dealers aren't going to look at other business ventures. Selling drugs is what they do and will always do.
Based on your debunked theory.So with all this there will be a major shift and skyrocket of crime from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
What are the percentage of people imprisoned in the US due to drug related criminality?Btw: I'm a Metro Corrections Officer/ 3rd shift. Why would i have a financial stake in illegal drugs?
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
'In Hoc Signo Vinces'