• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Legalize Hard Drugs?

Legalize hard drugs?

  • Total voters
    47
Cochise said:
My intuitive impulse is in favor of legalization of all drugs, but you have to realize that what you’ve advanced isn’t a very economically detailed idea. You probably realize that the negative externalities associated with high rates of hard drug usage are severe (and they could potentially end up being more coercive and authoritarian than the prohibition of drugs), but perhaps you believe that your Pigovian solution of sin taxing legalized products will cut consumer demand. That would work fine with, say, firearms. But as hard drugs are physically and psychologically addictive substances, they’d be highly inelastic goods. First-year micro students typically laugh when they hear that cigarettes are technically classified as “necessities” because of their low elasticity, but it’s a testament to the addictive nature of nicotine.

With the negative externalities imposed by widespread smoking already violating the libertarian non-aggression principle, legalization of hard drugs isn’t necessarily the straightforward libertarian idea you might think it to be.
Click to expand...

"externalities" ... "more coercive and authoritarian" ... "your Pigovian solution" ... "the libertarian non-aggression principle" ...

What?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I disagree. I think we would see a substantial increase. There are 3 types of people: 1) those that will use regardless; 2) those that won't use regardless; 3) those whose use will be significantly based on the drug's legality. The potential for criminality is a deterent for these people. Without that, ateadt some will use, and with the highly addictive qualities of these substances, one will find a significant increase. Folks don't use meth "every once in a while".
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Spain or Portugal decriminalize drug use? Have they seen significant increases in usage?
 
The Mark said:
It seems obvious that you do NOT support legalization of "hard drugs".
Given that, what changes/improvements, if any, would you apply to the current law enforcement methods in use against the illegal production, transport, sale, and usage of such?

Or are the current methods on target, and simply need tweaking?
Click to expand...

I don't have too much of a problem with the current law enforcement methods, though there are two changes that I would like to see. Firstly, if marijuana is legalized, some of the monies saved from addressing this substance can be moved to others. Secondly, I would like to see the focus be more on treatment then criminalization for those who are solely users.
 
The Mark said:
Questions for those who support the legalization of "Hard Drugs".

What type of restrictions/rules would those legally permitted to produce/transport/sell such be under?
Click to expand...

A license and some sort of verification that the amount received equals the amount dispersed.

Would there be quality standards?
Click to expand...

There could be like the food industry or drug industry.

Transportation security standards?
Click to expand...

Other than anonymity, no.

Could they be held legally liable, like bars, if one of their customers wrecked while driving home under the influence of one of these drugs?
Click to expand...

No, they are selling like an ANC store, not using on premises like a bar.

What about advertizing?
Click to expand...

No ads.

Would there be restrictions on advertizing drugs to minors, like cigarettes companies currently are held to?
Click to expand...

No ads.
 
Gander said:
I can't answer these questions because I do not favor a single standard for everyone. I believe state and local governments should regulate drugs in a manner that best suites their specific needs. Eventually, the places with the most effective regulatory frameworks would thrive and serve as an example of how to properly regulate drugs. I don't see why anyone would object to this.
Click to expand...
Ok, in that case.

What answers to those questions would you support in your state and/or local area?

And, BTW, who said anything about a single standard?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I disagree. I think we would see a substantial increase. There are 3 types of people: 1) those that will use regardless; 2) those that won't use regardless; 3) those whose use will be significantly based on the drug's legality. The potential for criminality is a deterent for these people. Without that, ateadt some will use, and with the highly addictive qualities of these substances, one will find a significant increase.
Click to expand...

Some people, particularly the young, use because it is illegal. But what's more important than how many users there are is how they use it. Prohibitions tend to cause more irresponsible use, which costs society more than casual use.

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.

Folks don't use meth "every once in a while".
Click to expand...

Actually yes, some do. I have known a few.

Approximately 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.
Click to expand...

Southeast Asia

CaptainCourtesy said:
Proof really isn't possible in this circumstance. One can presume this logically because of the addictive qualities of these drugs. Heroin, for example, triggers certain parts of the brain that other drugs either do not, or do so in a far lesser capacity. Therefore, logically, we know that as these substances are more addictive, their use increases when the amount of people use them. These drugs are not like alcohol, which can be used recreationally, and without concern for addiction, at least in some.
Click to expand...

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.

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:
The Mark said:
Ok, in that case.

What answers to those questions would you support in your state and/or local area?

And, BTW, who said anything about a single standard?
Click to expand...

I would favor Federally imposed standards on manufacturing methods and conditions; product quality; advertising; interstate commerce; and age of consent; I would also support a Federal sales tax (which would accrue revenue from drug use) in lieu of the income tax.

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.
 
reefedjib said:
"externalities" ... "more coercive and authoritarian" ... "your Pigovian solution" ... "the libertarian non-aggression principle" ...

What?
Click to expand...

An externality is a spillover effect on a party or parties external to a financial transaction; it comes in positive and negative forms. An example of a positive externality would be the effect that individual exterior home renovation had on the property value of surrounding houses. An example of a negative externality would be the effect that air or effluent pollution from an environmentally unsanitary business firm had on the surrounding ecology.

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.
 
Hatuey said:
:roll: - I could write you an entire 3 page essay on how I use to be a drug addict, but I won't. What I will say is simply this - nobody goes to jail for a minor possession rap. Maybe in the 80s and maybe early 90s. But in the year 2010? No. You have to do something serious for any cop to want to take the time to do more than simply take drugs away from you.

If that minor "possession rap" made your girlfriend want to get deeper into drugs, then I guess she didn't learn her lesson now did she? But then again, that is kind of the point - most drug addicts don't - some do - the overwhelming majority don't. It is the reason you see the streets of NYC littered with heroin addicts, crack addicts and meth users.
Click to expand...

You still get a record
 
Cochise said:
An externality is a spillover effect on a party or parties external to a financial transaction; it comes in positive and negative forms. An example of a positive externality would be the effect that individual exterior home renovation had on the property value of surrounding houses. An example of a negative externality would be the effect that air or effluent pollution from an environmentally unsanitary business firm had on the surrounding ecology.

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 Coase theorem.

This paper gives a decent overview of an economically based analysis of drug legalization.
Click to expand...

I think so too.:)
 
OrlandoGringo said:
...Addicts commit crimes to pay for their addiction and then give their ill-gotten money to the pushers.
Click to expand...
Not sure how I feel on the subject.

Devils advocate...

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...

Peace

EDIT: lol, I just checked into the thread a little deeper - I'm a little out of my league...
 
Last edited:
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!
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Some people, particularly the young, use because it is illegal. But what's more important than how many users there are is how they use it. Prohibitions tend to cause more irresponsible use, which costs society more than casual use.
Click to expand...

The types of drugs we are discussing tend to cause more irresponsible use.

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.
Click to expand...

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.



Actually yes, some do. I have known a few.
Click to expand...

I find that hard to believe. The drug itself causes the addictive desire to continue using. This is biochemical.



Southeast Asia



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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gander said:
I would favor Federally imposed standards on manufacturing methods and conditions; product quality; advertising; interstate commerce; and age of consent; I would also support a Federal sales tax (which would accrue revenue from drug use) in lieu of the income tax.

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.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Without a federally mandated manufacturing/distributing law, you would have communities that vote against it needing to police those from other communities who allow it. The infiltration issues would cause more problems for those who bar it and infringe on their rights. Individual communities do NOT live in a vacuum. This is one big reason why I am against anything like this that is not centrally managed and mandated.
 
Last edited:
MC Blitzen said:
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!
Click to expand...

Ummm... NO. This makes no sense in relation to what we are discussing. And no, marijuana is NOT a "natural, safe, medicine". You are spreading just the type of inaccurate propaganda that hurts the marijuana pro-legalization argument.
 
Cochise said:
An externality is a spillover effect on a party or parties external to a financial transaction; it comes in positive and negative forms. An example of a positive externality would be the effect that individual exterior home renovation had on the property value of surrounding houses. An example of a negative externality would be the effect that air or effluent pollution from an environmentally unsanitary business firm had on the surrounding ecology.

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 Coase theorem.

This paper gives a decent overview of an economically based analysis of drug legalization.
Click to expand...

I read your paper on an economically based analysis of drug legalization. It seemed their Pigovian analysis resulted in a recommendation that there be regulated drug legalization.

One item that came up several times was the question of whether legalization leads to increased drug usage. I posted earlier about a study of Portugal: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/69893-legalize-hard-drugs-13.html#post1058671151
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I disagree. I think we would see a substantial increase.
Click to expand...

Based on speculation.

There are 3 types of people: 1) those that will use regardless; 2) those that won't use regardless; 3) those whose use will be significantly based on the drug's legality.
Click to expand...

No.3 is questionable in the fact that you assume adequate rationality in obeying the law, yet expect that same "rational person" to lack the same type of analysis when taking a harmful substance (not to consider the addictive/negative health effects).

The potential for criminality is a deterent for these people.
Click to expand...

Yet you can only speculate on the specific size of this population. Portugal's track record is most interesting when considering hard drug legalization. Under your assumption: when drugs were legalized in Portugal, there would be a substantial increase in the use. And yet...... All reported usage of hard drugs decreased.

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.
Click to expand...

source

Without that, ateadt some will use, and with the highly addictive qualities of these substances, one will find a significant increase. Folks don't use meth "every once in a while".
Click to expand...

Only if you assume partial rationality. You can't have it both ways;)
 
They don't need drugs in portugal. They have some ass kicking wine there.:)
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes they focus upon harm minimization strategies, which is simultaneously the most ethical and effective way of approaching the drug problem aside from just educating people for primary prevention. The higher base rate undoubtedly has nothing to do with drug policy, as suggested by the fact that Dutch trends in total users mirrored that of neighboring countries. Yet their approach does reduce the number of problem users, which is the best that can be done.

I find that hard to believe. The drug itself causes the addictive desire to continue using. This is biochemical.
Click to expand...

That's an oversimplification. It is an interaction between the drug, the method of use, the user, and the social context of use.

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.
Click to expand...

They could be regulated.

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.
Click to expand...

Right. And you know what the worst drug in terms of the ratio of people who try it versus people who get addicted? Nicotine.
 
reefedjib said:
I think we should legalize hard drugs to remove the criminal element from drug distribution and pay for treatment with taxes. Who agrees with me?
Click to expand...
I think we should legalize murder to remove the criminal element. :doh
 
American said:
I think we should legalize murder to remove the criminal element. :doh
Click to expand...

What is the similarity between using hard drugs and murder? Got nothing? I didn't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom