Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
The Dutch have liberal drug laws compared to other countries in Europe. Yet the change in use rate patterns follow the same patterns as nearby countries, suggesting that drug use is not dependent upon drug policy. What is different about the Dutch experience is that fewer of their drug users are problem drug users. 1 in 13 of those who use drugs other than marijuana are problem users, compared to an average of 1 in 6 in other European countries.
Actually yes, some do. I have known a few.Folks don't use meth "every once in a while".
Southeast AsiaApproximately 80 percent of all drug arrests in Japan involve methamphetamine. The National Police Agency (NPA) estimates there are 600,000 methamphetamine addicts, and between one and three million casual users nationwide.
While it is generally not easy to get addicted to alcohol, once you're hooked it's the worst one. Alcohol is severely physically addictive to the point that trying to quit cold turkey can be life threatening (heroin is similar in this respect). Some hard drugs are barely (cocaine) or not physically addictive (LSD), and people only become addicted to them in the same sense that they can get addicted to sex or gambling. In all cases, there are more casual than hardcore users, though.
Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 04-07-10 at 07:19 PM.
I would want to see states and localities decide whether or not "hard drugs" could be manufactured and sold in their respective areas. If a community does not want to let people manufacture or distribute meth in their community, then they should be able to restrict that kind of activity. If, however, a community wanted to allow it, they could as long as certain Federal guidelines were adhered to. Over time, the best regulatory framework would emerge.
I refer to negative externalities as authoritarian and coercive because they are essentially impositions on third parties caused by the social cost of a certain activity (such as consumption of hard drugs) exceeding the private cost. For example, spread of secondhand smoke is an instigation of aggression upon external third parties. This is at odds with the libertarian non-aggression principle, which "holds that 'aggression', which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate."
Pigovian taxation is intended to act as a disincentive to the excessive production of negative externalities. For example, a pollution tax effectively raises the production costs of a polluter, optimally to a level where his/her/its private cost matches the social costs of his/her/its activity. Pigovian subsidization, conversely, is intended to incentivize the production of positive externalities.
I'm not suggesting that this kills the case for legalization/decriminalization of hard drugs, actually. Milton Friedman, hardly a man ignorant of economics, was able to construct an argument in favor of such policy if it was perhaps too reliant on his pre-existing ideological beliefs. And any true defender of property rights would be obligated to consider the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem"]Coase theorem[/ame].
This paper gives a decent overview of an economically based analysis of drug legalization.
They will still be giving money, even if it's to different 'pushers'.
This doesn't seem to positively impact the crimes committed in order to get the money to pay for their habit.
It seems plausible that legalization would increase the amount of users, likely adding to the number of people committing crimes to pay for their habits.
User crime could rise, not fall.
I haven't considered the big picture though...
EDIT: lol, I just checked into the thread a little deeper - I'm a little out of my league...
Last edited by Pull My Finger; 04-08-10 at 02:15 AM.
My eyes are always open, habitat gropin'...
the value of drugs is worse than the drugs...
the incentive for drug manufacturers is money, and if we made sure that drugs were accessible to addicts for FREE, the market of drugs would be sabotaged... and nurses could be administering to 'the sick' rather than drug pushers....and the sick wouldn't be compromising everything for the next 'fix'
Marijuana needs to be used as a Great Ally in our societies' 'war on drugs'...it's a natural, safe medicine, let's be honest now...doctors everywhere study it and know it to be the truth...
DEVALUE DRUGS! stop making them scarce....sabotage the black market with free drugs!
smoke weed if you want to get high, nothing else is required..even alcohol is wack, in comparison....it's just not natural....wake up people!
The Dutch do distinguish between "soft" and "hard" drugs, with marijuana rate as a "soft" drug, whereas the drugs we are discussing are "hard" drugs. They have found that those who use hard drugs use them at a higher rate than other countries, but those that become "problem" users are at a lower rate. This however may not be a reaction to the drug laws, but a reaction to the policy of treating problem users. 90% of all users who want detoxification treatment receive it on the government's dime. This fits in with what I have suggested. This is a better indicator of folks who are not problem users than the more liberal drug policies... which are not as liberal as you might think, but are just not enforced as stringently.The Dutch have liberal drug laws compared to other countries in Europe. Yet the change in use rate patterns follow the same patterns as nearby countries, suggesting that drug use is not dependent upon drug policy. What is different about the Dutch experience is that fewer of their drug users are problem drug users. 1 in 13 of those who use drugs other than marijuana are problem users, compared to an average of 1 in 6 in other European countries.
I find that hard to believe. The drug itself causes the addictive desire to continue using. This is biochemical.Actually yes, some do. I have known a few.
I disagree. Higher addiction rates are a result of the drug themselves and their addictive quality. Further, there are two schools of thought here. Those who create and "cut" these drugs could create a more potent form to keep the user addicted, or a less potent form so that they can sell a higher quantity. There is no reason to believe that those who would produce it legally would not use either of these scenarios for the same reason.Higher addiction rates are partly a consequence of the Iron law of Prohibition. More concentrated forms of a drug tend to lead to greater levels of addiction.
If we talk quantity, it takes far less heroin to be addicted than it does alcohol, and a smaller percentage of folks who use the latter will succumb. This would translate into higher usage per user and because of a higher addiction rate, more problems that relate to the disease itself.While it is generally not easy to get addicted to alcohol, once you're hooked it's the worst one. Alcohol is severely physically addictive to the point that trying to quit cold turkey can be life threatening (heroin is similar in this respect). Some hard drugs are barely (cocaine) or not physically addictive (LSD), and people only become addicted to them in the same sense that they can get addicted to sex or gambling. In all cases, there are more casual than hardcore users, though.
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run
Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.