• 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
reefedjib said:
A) Taxes raised on the sale of hard drugs paying for rehab of addicts

vs

B) Taxes spent by non-users incarcerating addicts AND providing rehab

I will choose A, thank you.
Click to expand...

Unless you charge a significant markup in taxes and prevent the cultivation of the stuff needed to make those drugs then non-users will still be paying.


The cost of legal drugs will still be cheaper than the black market. Some current cartel organizations will become legal distributors. Same as alcohol after prohibition.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that brewing companies still have thugs after prohibition or are you saying that cartels will get rid of their thugs after drug legalization?
 
jamesrage said:
It is not a matter of simply ingesting drugs.As the op suggested we should use that money to pay for their treatments. Also if these people get hooked on hard core drugs I may have to support their family through welfare payments and foodstamps, section 8 housing because they decided that getting high or tweeking was more important than taking care of their family.


You want to me shell out cash to someone I do not know so they can get treatment. If I got to be shelling out cash I do not want to do it for their enjoyment.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you're so gung ho about incarceration instead of treatment. It's not like treatment is fun either. Both cost the taxpayer money, but one will make them worse afterwards while the other may help them become productive citizens later. You must think the threat of incarceration minimizes recreational drug use. Simply not true.

lizzie said:
It's hard to say. I doubt the tax receipts paid by the users would be enough to fund treatment. It's something that really can't be determined in a make-believe scenario.
Click to expand...

Taxes are adjustable up to the point that a black market reemerges, which is generally at a high rate for most drugs (probably not marijuana, though it's not a hard drug). Most drug users are not problem users, and a lower proportion of them are problem users where drug policy is more liberal, as we see in the Dutch experience. But we should keep in mind that we're already paying for them, and they're not paying for themselves at all under the status quo because we can't tax the drugs under prohibition.
 
jamesrage said:
You seem to have the crayola colored picture of everybody including the cartel holding hands and smiling with the words drugs legalized with backwards Es. Cartels are a business,the Mexican government is not going to crack down on them just because drugs are legalized nor are the cartels just going to sit idly by and allow competition in their areas because competition means less profit for them.
Click to expand...

Let's take a look a mexican cartels. Now I don't have the exact percentages, but I think 60% of a cartels business is buying mexican produced marijuana, smuggling it across the border, and distributing it to gangs on the US side, some mexican and some not. This means 40% is cocaine and heroin.

We legalize marijuana in the US. Local US growers start growing and distributing marijuana locally. The demand for mexican weed drops (there may still be a little demand since mexican weed is $200/Z or something, while local legal hydroponic is $300/Z - $700/Z. Local US growers may come up with a $200/Z solution). Let's say business falls off 90% for the mexican cartel. The US gangs distributing marijuana lose the exclusivity of their product.

Now let's say we legalize coke, crack, and heroin. Meth does seem particularly nasty and we may not want to go there. With coke, we approach coca growers in Columbia, buy direct, have the labs convert coca to coke in Columbia, and ship it by air or rail to the US. It passes through Mexico legally. With Heroin, we do a deal with Afghan warlords to convert poppy to H and ship it legally. The cartels are cut out of the supply chain. They lose all that revenue. The US gangs are cut out of the supply chain and lose their revenue.

The mexican cartel cannot afford their soldiers and bribes to officials without their revenue streams. They will go by the wayside. This includes the gangs inside the US that lose their product and revenue.
 
jamesrage said:
Unless you charge a significant markup in taxes and prevent the cultivation of the stuff needed to make those drugs then non-users will still be paying.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that preventing the cultivation will have much of an effect. Perhaps some non-payers will continue to pay, but this will be much less than they are currently paying.


So you are saying that brewing companies still have thugs after prohibition or are you saying that cartels will get rid of their thugs after drug legalization?
Click to expand...

Why do they need thugs?
 
reefedjib said:
Let's take a look a mexican cartels. Now I don't have the exact percentages, but I think 60% of a cartels business is buying mexican produced marijuana, smuggling it across the border, and distributing it to gangs on the US side, some mexican and some not. This means 40% is cocaine and heroin.

We legalize marijuana in the US. Local US growers start growing and distributing marijuana locally. The demand for mexican weed drops (there may still be a little demand since mexican weed is $200/Z or something, while local legal hydroponic is $300/Z - $700/Z. Local US growers may come up with a $200/Z solution). Let's say business falls off 90% for the mexican cartel. The US gangs distributing marijuana lose the exclusivity of their product.

Now let's say we legalize coke, crack, and heroin. Meth does seem particularly nasty and we may not want to go there. With coke, we approach coca growers in Columbia, buy direct, have the labs convert coca to coke in Columbia, and ship it by air or rail to the US. It passes through Mexico legally. With Heroin, we do a deal with Afghan warlords to convert poppy to H and ship it legally. The cartels are cut out of the supply chain. They lose all that revenue. The US gangs are cut out of the supply chain and lose their revenue.

The mexican cartel cannot afford their soldiers and bribes to officials without their revenue streams. They will go by the wayside. This includes the gangs inside the US that lose their product and revenue.
Click to expand...

see that plan hinges on the flaw that you think the cartels will play nice, and won't simply threaten the growers children when they start selling to americans, these are ruthless business men and will not simply roll over and go away.
 
Last edited:
hmmmmm, the only things I would be ok with legalizing is marijuana and heroin, marijuana because it's pretty innocent compared to the other drugs, heroin because it's a powerful painkiller, more so than morphine.

also, if marijuana were legalized, those who wanted to use it, could simply grow it themselves (of course they're probably doing it already in basements)
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
With legalization, much of the supply chain could be done in the US.
Click to expand...

Where in the US would we be able to grow coca plants, poppy plants and other plants needed for hard drugs in order to stay competitive with foreign sources?

The ideal wold also be for other countries to do the same as us.
Click to expand...
What we do has no bearing on what other countries and what other countries do has no bearing on us. Just because we do something does not mean other will follow suit.



Again, economics. Bloodshed is simply uneconomical in an open market. See above
Click to expand...

Cartels are criminal organizations. Even though they they criminal organization they are still businesses selling a product. Competition to them mess less profits.Since they are a criminal organization nothing is going to stop them from shooting the guy down the street selling the same product they are selling. Criminal organizations are businesses and most of the time operate like business but however will use illegal tactics for their advantage.

Who said anythng about being nice or cracking down?
Click to expand...

You seem to have this dream that cartels will go legit if we legalize hard drugs.

This is simple business reality. Criminal empires are an expensive enterpirse.
Click to expand...

How are criminal enterprises expensive?

If they can do it more cheaply they will or they won't have any money to threaten anyone.
Click to expand...

If they shoot their competition they will have more money.If they extort their competition they will have more money.
 
spud_meister said:
see that plan hinges on the flaw that you think the cartels will play nice, and won't simply threaten the growers children when they start selling to americans, these are ruthless business men and will not simply roll over and go away.
Click to expand...

Again, this costs a lot of money. The leaders of these cartels are intelligent businessmen. They can see that legitimate business in an open drug market is far more profitable than violence.
 
hmmmm lookit! [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_drugs]Hard and soft drugs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

cannabis, or marijuana is a soft drug, not hard

interesting that tobacco and alcohol are borderline
 
Hand the stuff out for free to anybody dumb enough to use them. good way to thin the herd.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Again, this costs a lot of money. The leaders of these cartels are intelligent businessmen. They can see that legitimate business in an open drug market is far more profitable than violence.
Click to expand...

How much do you think they are paying someone to put a bullet into someones head or to have someone beat up?
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Again, this costs a lot of money. The leaders of these cartels are intelligent businessmen. They can see that legitimate business in an open drug market is far more profitable than violence.
Click to expand...

but still, if you legalise the drugs, what is going to stop the cartels resorting to illegal tactics to make a profit, like you said, they're intelligent business men, and if they're operating outside the US, they can get away with it.
 
jamesrage said:
Where in the US would we be able to grow coca plants, poppy plants and other plants needed for hard drugs in order to stay competitive with foreign sources?
Click to expand...

There are places like HI and other subtropical areas where they can be grown. Again, ideally this would be done in cooperation with several other countries.

jamesrage said:
What we do has no bearing on what other countries and what other countries do has no bearing on us. Just because we do something does not mean other will follow suit.
Click to expand...


Hence the cooperation part.


jamesrage said:
Cartels are criminal organizations. Even though they they criminal organization they are still businesses selling a product. Competition to them mess less profits.Since they are a criminal organization nothing is going to stop them from shooting the guy down the street selling the same product they are selling. Criminal organizations are businesses and most of the time operate like business but however will use illegal tactics for their advantage.
Click to expand...

They can't do much about it. Either adapt or they have no money to buy the resources to threaten them with.

jamesrage said:
You seem to have this dream that cartels will go legit if we legalize hard drugs.
Click to expand...

No, They will shrink significantly if not die off completely.

jamesrage said:
How are criminal enterprises expensive?
Click to expand...

Along with the normal costs of business one needs a steady string of replacemnts, weapons, bribe money, and enough resources to carry out a gang war. You don't think that they're using a lot of resources to fight the Mexican government down south?

jamesrage said:
If they shoot their competition they will have more money.If they extort their competition they will have more money.
Click to expand...

If their competition undercuts them, no money, This is like saying that legitimate alcohol couldn't start up after Prohibition because the Bootleggers would threaten the legitimate businesses.
 
spud_meister said:
but still, if you legalise the drugs, what is going to stop the cartels resorting to illegal tactics to make a profit, like you said, they're intelligent business men, and if they're operating outside the US, they can get away with it.
Click to expand...

And it would still cost a lot more money than doing it legally.
 
BTW this has all been addressed ad nauseum in the "Should we Legalize Drugs for Mexico's Benefit" Thread. Please read through that 1st before responding here. I don't like repeating myself or others much.
 
anyone happen to catch my posts? bottom of page 6
 
Skateguy said:
Hand the stuff out for free to anybody dumb enough to use them. good way to thin the herd.
Click to expand...

Meth will learn em' a thing or two....
 
Yes! Make it all legal, tax it and then have control over who can get it. Just like booze.
 
PonyBoy said:
Exactly. Meth is the only reason i would be against 'legal hard drugs'. Meth has literally destroyed entire communities in my state. Meth is one helluva drug...
Click to expand...

In Hawaii, meth didn't show up (called ice here) until 'Operation Green Harvest' shut down almost all marijuana production. They succeeded in jacking up the price of pot, and also succeeded in making ice look like a good deal. Bad move. I think this is a standard pattern. If reasonable intoxicants are available for reasonable prices, almost everyone who wants to be high will use them. When a nasty drug is cheaper, people will use it. My guess is that legal drugs would REDUCE hard drug use, except for those already addicted to something... and they'll get it, whatever it takes.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
There are places like HI and other subtropical areas where they can be grown.
Click to expand...

So HI is going to grow enough coca,poppies and other plants to support the hard drug demand in our country?


Again, ideally this would be done in cooperation with several other countries.



Hence the cooperation part
Click to expand...
So we are going to rely on other countries to promise not use/outsource production to cartels to grow our stuff?






They can't do much about it. Either adapt or they have no money to buy the resources to threaten them with.
Click to expand...


Actually they can do much about it on their turf.

No, They will shrink significantly if not die off completely.
Click to expand...

Not in countries like Mexico with a corrupt government and crappy law enforcement.

Along with the normal costs of business one needs a steady string of replacements,
Click to expand...

Considering the fact Mexico is a dirt poor 3rd world country replacements are probably not that expensive.

weapons,
Click to expand...
Can't be that expensive if they stole them or bought them off of someone else who stole those weapons.

bribe money
Click to expand...
Do you think all they do is sell drugs?


If their competition undercuts them, no money,
Click to expand...

If their competition is on the same soil as they are, then that competition is dead or extorted for money,not no money

This is like saying that legitimate alcohol couldn't start up after Prohibition because the Bootleggers would threaten the legitimate businesses.
Click to expand...
We pretty much got crime controlled in our country, can you say the same thing about Mexico and other countries? The bootleggers that were here in the US went legitimate and were probably legit before prohibition and the mobs switched to something else. Plus the stuff used to make beer and other alcohol can be grown and purchased here in the US and brewed in the US.
 
Gander said:
I never said I wanted you to pay for anything. I'm just asking why you feel the need to imprison some guy because he felt like getting high. He's not hurting you.
Click to expand...

Someone high could hurt others. In Arizona it was just announced that the truck driver who killed 4 and injured a bunch more motercycle riders last week was arrested. The driver was high on meth. We arrest drunk drivers, why not drug users.

Dump truck driver involved in fatal motorcycle crash arrested | Phoenix News | Arizona News | azfamily.com | Arizona News
 
jamesrage said:
So HI is going to grow enough coca,poppies and other plants to support the hard drug demand in our country?
Click to expand...


And subtropical areas as well as other countries that compete.

jamesrage said:
So we are going to rely on other countries to promise not use/outsource production to cartels to grow our stuff?
Click to expand...

See below

jamesrage said:
Actually they can do much about it on their turf.
Click to expand...

Cartels aren't street gangs

jamesrage said:
Not in countries like Mexico with a corrupt government and crappy law enforcement.
Click to expand...

What would the law enforcement go after? The stuff is legal. The government wouldn't run it.

Considering the fact Mexico is a dirt poor 3rd world country replacements are probably not that expensive.


Can't be that expensive if they stole them or bought them off of someone else who stole those weapons. [/QUOTE]

Call me crazy, but I think that when you're taking on a nations sizable military, you're using a good amount of resources.


jamesrage said:
Do you think all they do is sell drugs?
Click to expand...

Of course not, but it is their most significant source of revenue.


jamesrage said:
If their competition is on the same soil as they are, then that competition is dead or extorted for money,not no money
Click to expand...

THEY WOULD HAVE NO MONEY TO GO AGAINST THEM WITH


jamesrage said:
We pretty much got crime controlled in our country, can you say the same thing about Mexico and other countries? The bootleggers that were here in the US went legitimate and were probably legit before prohibition and the mobs switched to something else. Plus the stuff used to make beer and other alcohol can be grown and purchased here in the US and brewed in the US.
Click to expand...

18,000 murders in Mexico a year is not an improvement by any means. Also, I don't see this as a reason to not lower violence more in the US.

Again, see the other thread. This has all been addressed ad nauseum.
 
mike2810 said:
Someone high could hurt others. In Arizona it was just announced that the truck driver who killed 4 and injured a bunch more motercycle riders last week was arrested. The driver was high on meth. We arrest drunk drivers, why not drug users.

Dump truck driver involved in fatal motorcycle crash arrested | Phoenix News | Arizona News | azfamily.com | Arizona News
Click to expand...

1000s of people die from drunk driving every single year. Yet alcohol is still legal. Do we arrest random drunks that aren't doing anything to anyone else? Getting into a car drunk/high places others in a clear and present danger. Sitting at home with meth doesn't. Drug use by itself places no one in danger except the drug user.
 
Gosh, if violent cartels are so competitive in legal businesses, I wonder why they don't take over all legal business. From the sounds of it, being a violent cartel should lead to prosperity and success in any enterprise, and an ever expanding empire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom