Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

Binary_Digit said:

Oh yeah, that increase must have been due to decriminalization. I mean, there couldn't possibly be any other explanation, especially considering the other facts surrounding that snippet:


So following drug decriminalization in Portugal:

- Lowest EU rate of lifetime MJ use in people over 15.
- More Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used MJ.
- Lifetime use of heroin decreased decreased by almost 1%.
- Lifetime use of all drugs among 7-9th grade decreased by almost 4%.
- Deaths related to hard drugs decreased by more than 50%.

But a slight increase in MJ use among 16-18 y/o? OMG that must be due to decriminalization. Forget these other facts, decriminalization must be responsible for the increase in MJ use among 16-18 y/o. There's just no other explanation! :roll:

Cherry pick much?
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Click to expand...

You said drug use decreased in youth. The truth is, it increased in the 16 to 18 group. You were wrong. Why do you still deny it? Pathetic.

How do they determine lifetime use in 7th to 9th graders in 10 years? Their lifetime is just starting.

Lifetime use of heroin decreased by a whole 1%? Whats the margin of error? 5%?

I would not trust any of their statistics.

USA-1 said:

Of Course they do. But if pot were sold legally like beer, it would be infinitely easier for them to get and they would be smokin pot like they're drinkin beer now. Plus it's a lot easier to hide a joint then a twelve pack.

Click to expand...

Total speculation based on false/unclear assumptions. The majority of drug elasticity (the demand effect from changes in prices) is relatively high (pun intended) for the majority of users. The greater the drugs addictive properties, the greater this demand inelasticity. Lets consider legal cannabis: a much higher than normal inelasticity, but not in the same fashion as say heroin (highly addictive). More places selling cannabis shifts the quantity supplied to the right, there by decreasing the price yet (as the research shows) has an ambiguous effect on increasing quantity demanded due to the nature of demand for the drug. Of course there are income and substitution effects. Yet we need to analyze the specific policy in a more technical form in order to garner a quality cost benefit analysis of the two effects in question.

Capitalism would take over the pot industry. Corporate farms and their labs would produce the most potent sh*t ever.

Click to expand...

Already accomplished. You see.... potency in the illicit drug market greatly reduces transaction costs associated with the sales and risk associated in that market. It is far more profitable to move 10 tons of 100% heroin than it is to move 20 tons of 50% heroin across borders. Once the initial transaction is achieved, another unintended consequence emerges as pushers will be more willing to "cut" the said drug with additives in an attempt to regain profitability. Regulation in the said market almost eliminates the risk of contamination, which has been highly linked to a vast array of heroin overdoses.

You are thinking in the wrong direction. The novelty aspect is what you fear. Regulation has been very successful at eliminating the Marlboro man or Joe Camel. This is why regulation in this market would be key.

It would be high quality and plentiful. It is easier to manufacture than liquor or beer and economies of scale would force prices to drop like a rock. It would be marketed like Coca Cola or Marlboros. It would be a growth industry kind of like a combination of the alcohol and tobacco industry.

Click to expand...

Have you considered the income and substitution effects on tobacco and alcohol? Both drugs have a far..... far greater negative impact on society than cannabis. Again, your cost benefit analysis does not follow logically.

If they do legalize pot I will grow it in my garden and try to make a few bucks.

Click to expand...

But you are not an experienced pot grower and will most likely fail your ass off in your first attempt. Besides... If the price falls as you expect, consumers will be more likely to purchase it in stores that are far more efficient at "growing and tending to it" than your average pot consumer. Instead of spending time and money growing it yourself, they can find a job and purchase it for less than they would be giving up by tending to a garden as opposed to working a job. :2wave:

USA-1 said:

You said drug use decreased in youth. The truth is, it increased in the 16 to 18 group. You were wrong. Why do you still deny it? Pathetic.

Click to expand...

Actually you are wrong for two reasons:

1. That was my first post in this thread, so I haven't made any claims at all, much less the claim that drug use decreased among young people.

2. Your post was in response to reefedjib's statement: "we have studies that show there is no appreciable increase in usage when decriminalizing or legalizing." You were trying to show that drug use increased as a result of Portugal's decriminalization measures and you failed by cherry picking one example out of several to the contrary, without showing why that exception was due to decriminalization and why that result is different from the others.

Hayekian said:

Yes, absolutely. Legalize heroin also to put Taliban right out of business.

Not to mention ending the war on civil liberties here, and the massive social destruction that comes with making private tragedies a social one.

Camille Paglia excoriated the baby boom generation one time for their craven cowardice in not just maintaining the war on drugs but escalating it. Here here.

Click to expand...

>>

Actually, there's no logical reason for political daddyism in any part of our lives.

Live and let live as long as no one gets hurt.

ricksfolly

USA-1 said:

We already spend hundreds of billions on our military. We have the greatest military in the world. Use it and technology to secure the borders. Other countries do it.
We are wasting our military resources. We are being invaded and it's time for the military to defend our borders.

Click to expand...

And even that can't cover our borders effectively without massive costs.

USA-1 said:

There is no good that comes from alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs except for the therapeudic qualities of cannabis. Pot should be legalized. I see no ill effects to society from it.

Click to expand...

Do you see the double standard?

rivrrat said:

Not to mention an incentive to make sure it isn't laced with something dangerous.

Click to expand...

Yes, like PCP for example.

USA-1 said:

Of Course they do. But if pot were sold legally like beer, it would be infinitely easier for them to get and they would be smokin pot like they're drinkin beer now. Plus it's a lot easier to hide a joint then a twelve pack.

Capitalism would take over the pot industry. Corporate farms and their labs would produce the most potent sh*t ever. It would be high quality and plentiful. It is easier to manufacture than liquor or beer and economies of scale would force prices to drop like a rock. It would be marketed like Coca Cola or Marlboros. It would be a growth industry kind of like a combination of the alcohol and tobacco industry.

If they do legalize pot I will grow it in my garden and try to make a few bucks.

Click to expand...

Marduc already posted several stats showing how legalization doesn't necessarily increase usage.

If pot growing/marketing were to be taken over by capitalism, that would be a good thing, wouldn't it? Private enterprise would be making money, not the drug lords. Moreover, it would be planted on private land, not on national forest/ park land as it is now, so the impact on the environment would be a lot less.

Are you growing tobacco in your garden now? You might be missing out on an opportunity if not.

LiberalAvenger said:

There is no way that meth will ever be legalized. It is probably the worst drug out there. I can't imagine a country full of tweakers.

Click to expand...

Most people don't avoid drugs like meth and crack, because they're illegal. They avoid them, because they're dangerous.

Dittohead not! said:

Marduc already posted several stats showing how legalization doesn't necessarily increase usage.

If pot growing/marketing were to be taken over by capitalism, that would be a good thing, wouldn't it? Private enterprise would be making money, not the drug lords. Moreover, it would be planted on private land, not on national forest/ park land as it is now, so the impact on the environment would be a lot less.

Are you growing tobacco in your garden now? You might be missing out on an opportunity if not.

Click to expand...

Legalization of Alcohol did lead to increased usage.
You have to compare cannabis to alcohol. After Alcohol was legalized and free markets took over, prices dropped, supplies rose, marketing was implemented and its use increased exponentially. It led to the creation of some of the largest corporations in the country and drinking as a national pastime. Why would pot be any different? Common sense says it wouldn't. Unless of course it was regulated to the point where bootlegging and smuggling would be profitable and then we would be right back where we started.

The tobacco market is saturated at this point in time. In the early stages of legal pot there will be opportunity to make some money. As for knowing what I'm doing. I do know some people that are experts and it isn't rocket science.


I do believe pot should be legalized, but I do not believe it will solve any problems and may lead to new problems, just like alcohol.

samsmart said:

So my question is this: if U.S. consumption of illegal drugs is causing problems in Mexico, does the United States have the responsibility to legalize or decriminalize drugs so that Mexico loses it's black market as a drug supplier which will reduce drug violence in Mexico?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

USA-1 said:

Legalization of Alcohol did lead to increased usage.
You have to compare cannabis to alcohol. After Alcohol was legalized and free markets took over, prices dropped, supplies rose, marketing was implemented and its use increased exponentially. It led to the creation of some of the largest corporations in the country and drinking as a national pastime. Why would pot be any different? Common sense says it wouldn't. Unless of course it was regulated to the point where bootlegging and smuggling would be profitable and then we would be right back where we started.

The tobacco market is saturated at this point in time. In the early stages of legal pot there will be opportunity to make some money. As for knowing what I'm doing. I do know some people that are experts and it isn't rocket science.


I do believe pot should be legalized, but I do not believe it will solve any problems and may lead to new problems, just like alcohol.

Click to expand...

Studies ^^

DrunkenAsparagus said:

Studies ^^

Click to expand...

Studies? How about precedent? Remember alcohol?

USA-1 said:

Legalization of Alcohol did lead to increased usage.

[ect, ect.]

Click to expand...

See umm what is going on is that you have a serious credibility issue, you make unsupported specious claims, and when shown evidence to the contrary you ignore it and keep making the same claims.. yet you have yet to support any of the claims you have made.

lets examine a bit of the history of todays posting shall we?

You start the morning off with "Can you provide a link? " (thats a funny one!), and then make this empty claim:

Some of the worst gangland violence in history occurred during the decades after prohibition was repealed and alcohol use and abuse has skyrocketed ever since.

Click to expand...

You are given solid evidence refuting this claim (DOJ murder stats since 1900), so we have unsupported USA-1 bull**** claim #1.

Then what next...

Just as with alcohol, drug use by children will increase exponentially when they are legalized

Click to expand...

again another specious unsupported claim. I then provide supported evidence refuting this claim, namely the Wickersham report, which was the official Federal investigation into the efficacy of Alcohol Prohibition policy.

So here we have unsupported USA-1 bull**** claim #2 which you are making despite being shown evidence to the contrary.

ok moving along...

True. But drug use among children will increase if drugs are legal, just as it is with alcohol. Drugs will be as easy to get as beer for kids.

Click to expand...

not only did you ignore evidence to the contrary, but now you are using the recently refuted unsupported USA-1 bull**** claim #2 to lay the foundation to build unsupported USA-1 bull**** claim #3

So I again counter your unsupported bull**** claim with evidence, namely A study on the effects of Portugals decriminalization policy. I also stated (and can source) that year after year kids report it is easier to get marijuana than beer so unsupported USA-1 bull**** claim #3 was refuted from 2 angles although one of them got ignored.

your reply?

Portugal you are joking right?

Click to expand...

I provide even more evidence including studies from the US further refuting unsupported USA-1 bull**** claim #3.. you ignore them.

Then suddenly you do a 180 on your views and are cherry picking info from the Portugal study (well actually from a Time Magazine article interpreting the Cato study I provided a direct link to) a little refresher for you:

Portugal you are joking right?

Click to expand...

Suddenly it has relevancy to you, it supports (or so you think) one of your claimsand now the Cato study of Portugal (or rather the Time magazine article interpreting the study) was entirely relevant to you. Never mind the cherry picking issue.. that bit of dishonesty has already been clearly shown

-btw marijuana use went up for almost all countries in the EU during the same time frame (2000-2007), and countries with stricter laws (including their neighbor Spain) saw a greater increase of marijuana usage than Portugal saw-

So you get called on the cherry picking.. and the on again off again relationship with the stats on the Portugal study --err sorry Time Magazine article - discussing the study are now again working against you again

you change your tune again although yo were just all for using the interpretation of the study to support a "slight increase in marijuana use in that age group

you about face yet again on the study "Portugal you are joking right?" never mind the slight increase which you were hoisting on us as being valid, now we have this:

How do they determine lifetime use in 7th to 9th graders in 10 years? Their lifetime is just starting.

Lifetime use of heroin decreased by a whole 1%? Whats the margin of error? 5%?

I would not trust any of their statistics.

Click to expand...

Yeah you would not trust any of their stats.. unless of course you thought they might support your otherwise unsupported USA-1 bull**** claims

ohh yeah I forgot to include, to top all that off you are now AGAIN back to unsupported -yet refuted- bull**** claim #2 and getting pissy because someone is asking you to source. :doh

I clicked "other" because I didn't see an "Everybody's Benefit" selection.

Legalizing drugs won't help all Mexican's. In fact, it would put the pot cartels out of business. Don't think they would appreciate that.

USA-1 said:

After Alcohol was legalized and free markets took over, prices dropped, supplies rose, marketing was implemented and its use increased exponentially. Why would pot be any different?

Click to expand...

Because, for one thing, there should be no marketing allowed for marijuana or any other drug. Marijuana use won't become prevalent like alcohol use is if we don't glamorize it like we do alcohol. It doesn't matter what happens to the price or the supply. The only thing that matters is what happens to demand. As long as demand doesn't change, neither will the number of users regardless of the legal status.

That's why legalization shouldn't mean ending the WoD, it should mean changing the way we've been waging it. The WoD should focus on minimizing demand through education and deglamorization, instead of incarceration and/or cutting off the supply to addicts. Different strategy, same goal.

marduc said:

See umm what is going on is that you have a serious credibility issue, you make unsupported specious claims, and when shown evidence to the contrary you ignore it and keep making the same claims.. yet you have yet to support any of the claims you have made.

lets examine a bit of the history of todays posting shall we?

You start the morning off with "Can you provide a link? " (thats a funny one!), and then make this empty claim:



You are given solid evidence refuting this claim (DOJ murder stats since 1900), so we have unsupported USA-1 bull**** claim #1.

Then what next...



again another specious unsupported claim. I then provide supported evidence refuting this claim, namely the Wickersham report, which was the official Federal investigation into the efficacy of Alcohol Prohibition policy.

So here we have unsupported USA-1 bull**** claim #2 which you are making despite being shown evidence to the contrary.

ok moving along...



not only did you ignore evidence to the contrary, but now you are using the recently refuted unsupported USA-1 bull**** claim #2 to lay the foundation to build unsupported USA-1 bull**** claim #3

So I again counter your unsupported bull**** claim with evidence, namely A study on the effects of Portugals decriminalization policy. I also stated (and can source) that year after year kids report it is easier to get marijuana than beer so unsupported USA-1 bull**** claim #3 was refuted from 2 angles although one of them got ignored.

your reply?



I provide even more evidence including studies from the US further refuting unsupported USA-1 bull**** claim #3.. you ignore them.

Then suddenly you do a 180 on your views and are cherry picking info from the Portugal study (well actually from a Time Magazine article interpreting the Cato study I provided a direct link to) a little refresher for you:



Suddenly it has relevancy to you, it supports (or so you think) one of your claimsand now the Cato study of Portugal (or rather the Time magazine article interpreting the study) was entirely relevant to you. Never mind the cherry picking issue.. that bit of dishonesty has already been clearly shown

-btw marijuana use went up for almost all countries in the EU during the same time frame (2000-2007), and countries with stricter laws (including their neighbor Spain) saw a greater increase of marijuana usage than Portugal saw-

So you get called on the cherry picking.. and the on again off again relationship with the stats on the Portugal study --err sorry Time Magazine article - discussing the study are now again working against you again

you change your tune again although yo were just all for using the interpretation of the study to support a "slight increase in marijuana use in that age group

you about face yet again on the study "Portugal you are joking right?" never mind the slight increase which you were hoisting on us as being valid, now we have this:




Yeah you would not trust any of their stats.. unless of course you thought they might support your otherwise unsupported USA-1 bull**** claims

Click to expand...

Are you denying that alcohol usage increased after it was made legal?
If so, you really don't have a clue. The fact that the beer and booze corporations are some of the largest in the world should tell you something. See: Anheuser Busch

You use studies instead of common sense. It is perfectly rational and predictable that a new legal Cannabis industry would mirror the Alcohol industry after the repeal of prohibition. The sales of alcohol grew exponentially after it was made legal again.
This ain't Portugal. We are the kings of capitalism. If it's legal and there are profits to be made, the pot business will boom. The demand is already there even when it's against the law.

You can stop the ranting, anytime. This is a forum where people give opinions. It's not a contest.

USA-1 said:

Are you denying that alcohol usage increased after it was made legal?
If so, you really don't have a clue. The fact that the beer and booze corporations are some of the largest in the world should tell you something. See: Anheuser Busch

You use studies instead of common sense. It is perfectly rational and predictable that a new legal Cannabis industry would mirror the Alcohol industry after the repeal of prohibition. The sales of alcohol grew exponentially after it was made legal again.
This ain't Portugal. We are the kings of capitalism. If it's legal and there are profits to be made, the pot business will boom. The demand is already there even when it's against the law.

You can stop the ranting, anytime. This is a forum where people give opinions. It's not a contest.

Click to expand...

I'll say it again.

Decriminalization of drugs isn't to prevent drug use but rather drug violence.

USA-1 said:

Are you denying that alcohol usage increased after it was made legal?
If so, you really don't have a clue. The fact that the beer and booze corporations are some of the largest in the world should tell you something. See: Anheuser Busch

You use studies instead of common sense. It is perfectly rational and predictable that a new legal Cannabis industry would mirror the Alcohol industry after the repeal of prohibition. The sales of alcohol grew exponentially after it was made legal again.
This ain't Portugal. We are the kings of capitalism. If it's legal and there are profits to be made, the pot business will boom. The demand is already there even when it's against the law.

You can stop the ranting, anytime. This is a forum where people give opinions. It's not a contest.

Click to expand...

Again, that happened because alcohol use was glamorized and encouraged in society, not because prohibition was repealed.

Why would the US legalize drugs? You have to be very naive to not see that their are many LEO who benefit from the war on drugs, be it that they are either corrupt and accept bribes or they wouldn't have a job if their was no war.

Gray_Fox_86 said:

Why would the US legalize drugs? You have to be very naive to not see that their are many LEO who benefit from the war on drugs, be it that they are either corrupt and accept bribes or they wouldn't have a job if their was no war.

Click to expand...

Which would be another reason to legalize drugs.

USA-1 said:

Of Course they do. But if pot were sold legally like beer, it would be infinitely easier for them to get and they would be smokin pot like they're drinkin beer now. Plus it's a lot easier to hide a joint then a twelve pack.

Capitalism would take over the pot industry. Corporate farms and their labs would produce the most potent sh*t ever. It would be high quality and plentiful. It is easier to manufacture than liquor or beer and economies of scale would force prices to drop like a rock. It would be marketed like Coca Cola or Marlboros. It would be a growth industry kind of like a combination of the alcohol and tobacco industry.

If they do legalize pot I will grow it in my garden and try to make a few bucks.

Click to expand...

Three cheers for grown in the USA!:2usflag:

Goldenboy219 said:

Decriminalization still allows the black market to function by shielding the demand aspect (user) from a considerable amount of risk. This has to be taken with great importance as the criminal element of the drug trade... the supply aspect (pusher) is still the only means to obtain the drug. In order to shut down cartels and the sort, you will have to legalize their product. But certain measures would still have to be addressed given the addictive properties to cocaine, heroin, meth, etc..., from a societal point of view. Easier access to hard drugs presents its own sort of risks.

The focus on the "war on drugs" shifts from deterrence to rehabilitation. Drug abuse in these regards is a disease and until it is treated like one, the "war on drugs" will be a losing battle. Hospitals in the tune of the 100's, maybe even 1000's if we include nicotine and alcohol. All intended to treat addiction as a disease and allow a person to be "weened" off in the most medically sensible practice. Yes.... This means they will be (for the time being) supplying addicts with drugs.

Can you deal with that? If not; legalization is not for you. If not; the drug cartels will remain forever dominant in the black market.

Click to expand...

My short answer is: yes I can deal with that.

samsmart said:

Which would be another reason to legalize drugs.

Click to expand...

Well crooked cops wouldn't go straight just because they lost their revenue from the drug traders. They would start harassing civilians for money. And that isn't good for the public. With this drug trade we don't get to see how corrupt the police force is because it is very hard to keep track of all the billions of dollars in CASH that is being traded.

Gray_Fox_86 said:

Well crooked cops wouldn't go straight just because they lost their revenue from the drug traders. They would start harassing civilians for money. And that isn't good for the public. With this drug trade we don't get to see how corrupt the police force is because it is very hard to keep track of all the billions of dollars in CASH that is being traded.

Click to expand...

Can you show if this would be significant?