Do You Think Drugs Should Be Legalized

The problem with drugs being illegal is that it gives the government the so-called authority to tell each and every one of us what we can do with our bodies as well minds in the comfort of our homes. But when one looks around, he or she will see things that are harmful to us, but are taxed and sold anyway. Like cigarettes and alcohol and fast-food. Millions of people are affected by those three. How many people die from marijuana? Each year, five years, decade, twenty-five year, half-century, century. Other, harder drugs are different, they can actually kill people. Like with anything though, it boils down to choice. If a person wants to do cocaine, heroin, or crystal meth - that should be their choice to make, and theirs alone. There are inherit risks involved, just the same as becoming a smoker, a drinker, or someone who eats fast-food five days a week.

 

Americans used to be free to buy whatever drugs they wanted at low prices.

Then we decided to throw our neighbors in jail for using those drugs. At the same time, we let the super-rich get control of the drug market and charge us high prices.

Since then, the so called drug war consists of

1. War on anyone who supplies drugs outside of the drug racket system established by the super rich;
2. War on whole countries to make them accept drugs (like China) or the make them into drug plantations like Afghanistan.

It should be argued in court: How can it be a crime to market, possess or consume drugs, when the US government is protecting drug producer monopolies and permitting them to market those drugs for the profit of people in government & commerce?
View attachment 16444

 

This isn't a tough decision. Legalize drugs now, tax the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of them, and give no favors to those that fail. Here is the caveat. You lose your job or have no job, you fail test, you are unemployed with no benefits. End of story, you decide which is more important.

 

Tax solutions are reliant on internalising the various consumption externalities. A rather strong assumption given the low transaction costs associated with tax evasion

 

Tax solutions are simply an added buffer behind regulatory solutions. Depending on the amount to which negative consumption externalities are posed upon the society, the tax imposed can go from say, 2-3 percent on marijuana, to 20-30 percent on PCP. I, however, consider supply-side and demand-side regulatory solutions more effective than tax solutions.

 

Tax is essentially a supply-side regulatory solution.

 

Perhaps, but I sequester regulatory solutions from tax solutions in this case, with the former encompassing mandates, requirements for market entry, quality control, possession limits, and law enforcement provisions regarding activities while under the influence.

 

None of which will successfully correct for negative externalities

 

If by referring to negative externalities you mean back-end consequences such as rising addiction rates and incarceration, then the obvious solution is prison reform and expansion of rehabilitation clinics.

 

Given the wide range of externalities, a price correction is the only means to internalise the costs

 

That would require some form of decriminalization/legalization, which I support.

 

And we're back to the start: tax solutions are a price correction (and they will fail)

 

Then our discussion is going nowhere. You seem to be making a "(*)(*)(*)(*)ed if you do, (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if you don't" argument. How is that constructive in any way besides pointing out the minuscule flaws in every policy prescription? Is there any policy prescription you find appealing?

 

God, give me grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish the one from the other. -Reinhold Neibuhr

I don't think we can change the use of drugs whether they are legalized or not, so they might as well be legalized. I also think Republicans will always be trying to control things they can't possibly control.

 

I'm but honest about the problems we face. My natural inclination is to legalise and use policies to manipulate market price. However, I know that will fail. Given rational addiction can only partially explain consumption patterns, we're left with a continued rationale for prohibition (but a need to change the methods used to ensure a credible threat; such as the use of fines)

 

Drug use surely creates negative externalities, but sometimes externalities are justified. Drug use can create crime and lead to unemployment, but so can many things.

Being a viewer of Skins probably makes people go out and have unprotected sex+drink+etc. My God! Can you imagine the negative effect the existence of Skins has on society? Being a Socialist probably makes you statistically less willing to work for minimum wage, and more likely to use Welfare.

Should we ban Skins and outlaw political beliefs? Of course not, because people have a right to watch/think these things as long as they aren't coercing anyone else as a direct result. Same goes for drug use. The act of drug use itself harms no one, it simply changes your state of mind.


From an economic perspective I would not be surprised if legalizing drug use would have a negative effect on the economy, but who cares? If I told you that making alcohol illegal would significantly benefit the economy (which it no doubt would), would you find this a convincing argument for prohibition? Ask yourself why not

 

Unlike drug use, you won't be able to prove that

Still playing make-believe!

You've given nonsense comparisons in order to ignore the coercion that negative externalities necessarily entail. That won't wash!

Prohibition, given its so crucially engrained in culture, wouldn't work. Not surprisingly, other solutions are sought (such as more aggressive forms of regulation). With drugs we have a situation where its tax that won't work (as illustrated by the failure of tobacco taxes and the increased use of prohibition)

 

I don't have to prove it, it's a small example of a category that obviously exists. Fine, watching Need for Speed movies makes you statistically more likely to drive dangerously. I sure know that after seeing Vin Diesel tear it up I went for a few skids myself. Guessing I'm not alone in that.

My point is that not all instances of harming others are unjustified. Gun ownership leads to higher rates of homicide, car ownership leads to pedestrian deaths, SUV ownership leads to fuel shortages, etc. Pick whatever example you want. In these instances people have a right to own these things regardless of the negative impact on society. Same with drug use.

Additionally, not all instances of drug use create these externalities. I for example use alcohol and marijuana every now and then, yet I am employed and haven't yet gone on a crime spree. Arresting me for using pot because some other guy dropped 50 tabs and hacked his neighbor to death thinking he was a tree is stupid, and a flagrant transgression of my liberty.

See above.

How does drug use necessarily entail negative externalities. You can use drugs and be a perfectly fine member of society. (*)(*)(*)(*) off if you want to arrest me for other people's irresponsibility.

Have never understood how any person who graduated from kindergarten could find this point convincing. If you accept that a negative externality unjustly harms others then why the hell does it matter what society thinks? How does that make it less evil?

Furthermore, half of US adults support the legality of marijuana at least (http://www.gallup.com/poll/159152/americans-federal-gov-state-marijuana-laws.aspx). Million use it daily, it's all over print media, film, television, video games. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who's gotten through university or a rock concert without smelling/using it. It's an arbitrary point when a drug suddenly becomes too "accepted" to be illegal. The only reason people feel as they do is because of tens of millions of dollars of government and religious propaganda.

The drugs that prohibitionists always say are too accepted to be made illegal are universally the ones the government has made legal. Some drugs aren't as accepted as alcohol simply because they are illegal. How is this an argument against legalization?

That said, I'm not really that involved in any legalization efforts. Who cares what the government says we can and cannot do anyway?

 

you think prohibition of Alcohol works?


.

 

You mean that can't prove it! Of course it also makes no sense in terms of the analysis provided. In terms of negative externalities, we are talking about over-consumption. We don't have that in the weak efforts you provided.

This is another vacuous effort. You're referring to a chance that media influences can provoke illegal activity. That isn't an example of negative externalities (where we have the individual only taking into account private costs in their consumption decision). That is an example (assuming its actually true, which is a decidedly dodgy assumption) of changes in preferences.

You've provided examples where aspects of prohibition are often used (e.g. gun bans, licensing to stop people from consuming). Sounds like there is a lack of consistency in your argument!

We don't need to have a linear relationship between consumption and social costs. Interestingly, the rational addiction model (the main means to advertise the advantages from legalisation) also leads to a level of instability in consumption. Thus, we can expect to see minor changes in the conditions faced by the consumer significantly impacting on consumption levels (i.e. a drug user can go from occasional use to heavy use, with magnified externalities, without requiring the radical changes in economic variables required in more general markets)

The scientific evidence shows it. The only problem is that there are numerous sources and therefore quantification of social costs is difficult

This doesn't even respond to the point quoted. Try again and this time make sure you know what you're replying to

 

I am not a fan of legalization either. There are too many negative externalities. As I have stated in other threads, my approach is to decriminalize and use policies to manipulate market price and consumption patterns. These would include a full spectrum of tax and regulatory policies, but in no way would I advocate for the legalization of any drug.

 

The issue with decriminalisation is that you take away any notion of credible threat (and therefore a significant mechanism behind non-consumption)