decline reported in Afghan poppy crop

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
EDIT: re Kid

No. The statistics are there, it's up to the specialists to determine how it was made possible.

Can't you post their argument?

There are so many factors that can come into play in a market. Was it that legalization de-glamoured the stuff?

Using drugs is glamourous?

That it was accompanied by a sensible prevention policy instead of a repressive one?

Explain your proposal?

That people just got tired of it? Maybe the diminution was unrelated to legalization and arose from other causes, I mean how could I know? The point though is that legalization does not entail higher consumption.

Yes it does. You are arguing agains economic principles. You need an argument.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Prohibition has never worked in a free society. It only increases the resources of organized crime and drives people to use harder stuff, since the penalties are the same. Furthermore, as the European experience has shown, decriminization has led to less problems.

What is the true cost of drug use? Is it the criminal activity of drug dealers, or is it the result of drug addiction?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I prefer the Taliban approach which is to simply shoot everyone who grows poppies.

I prefer the American approach, which is to sustain dictatorships everywhere with drug money, and then ensure the profitability of drug trade by maintaining artificially inflated prices through prohibition and selective criminal prosecutions.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Yes it does. You are arguing agains economic principles. You need an argument.

No I'm not. Why is it that legalization would necessarily increase demand? As polling of drug abstainers have shown, illegality is an insignificant concern for them - they don't do drugs for other reasons.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I prefer the Taliban approach which is to simply shoot everyone who grows poppies.

Then dude, you're gonna LOVE the new attorney general!

[Solomwi]

Wow, I get to agree with Sava, Ned and chegitz all in the same post.

What is the true cost of drug use? Is it the criminal activity of drug dealers, or is it the result of drug addiction?

The thing is that the first cost you list largely goes away with legalization, and the second isn't increased by legalization.

Consider, also, that a drug dealer on the street doesn't care who he sells to, as long as it's not a cop, of course. If he gets busted, he's going away whether he sold to a 40 year old or an eight year old. A licensed businessman is going to care more who he sells to, because there's one group he'll go to the pen for selling to and another that he won't. Granted, you'll still have unscrupulous store owners, clerks, etc. who will sell to minors, but that's a far sight better than what we currently have.

How many more people would seek treatment for their drug problems if we removed the legal stigma? I'd wager it would be a significant increase, since all you're doing is removing one impediment, and whether it's real or imagined doesn't matter.

Just a little food for thought.

[Kidlicious]

The best thing to do with drugs is sell them to your enemy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


No I'm not. Why is it that legalization would necessarily increase demand? As polling of drug abstainers have shown, illegality is an insignificant concern for them - they don't do drugs for other reasons.

It doesn't increase demand. It increases supply. Lower costs increase supply. That intern increases drug use and addiction which creates all kinds of nasty externalities. The drug war pays for itself ten times over, and it's the moral thing to do.

[Ramo]

Yes it does. You are arguing agains economic principles. You need an argument.

1. If drugs are regulated by an open market with gov't protections, you won't find your lighter drugs laced with heavier drugs, getting you into more trouble.
2. Addiction isn't treated well through prison in the least. Drug treatment would be more accessible in a decriminalized environment.
3. Drug use would be more open, so drug effects would be more transparent. It'd be easier to find an honest answer to what medical problems drugs cause, so would be a more effective deterrent in the long term.

The simple fact is that prohibition is a policy failure, and always has been. Thanks to prohibition, we have half a million nonviolent drug offenders incarcerated in this country, and the substances sold in black markets controlled by violent gangs anyways.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Solomwi
Wow, I get to agree with Sava, Ned and chegitz all in the same post.

That figures. I knew there was something about this place. The same type of people tend to congregate here.

[Ramo]

It doesn't increase demand. It increases supply. Lower costs increase supply. That intern increases drug use and addiction which creates all kinds of nasty externalities.

The demand function has to be drastically changed with legalization. Surely you can see that.

And prohibition causes far more nasty externalities: massive incarceration and inner-city violence, in addition to rampant drug use anyways.

and it's the moral thing to do.

I smoke pot from time to time. How is it moral for the state to lock me up?

[Ramo]

And some empirical evidence to back up my points (since economics without empiricial evidence is masturbation):

Portugal has not a significant increase in drug use after it decriminalized its drugs (hard as well as soft).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo

Yes it does. You are arguing agains economic principles. You need an argument.

1. If drugs are regulated by an open market with gov't protections, you won't find your lighter drugs laced with heavier drugs, getting you into more trouble.

How often are lighter drugs laced with heavier drugs? It happened to me once actually. It was fun.

2. Addiction isn't treated well through prison in the least. Drug treatment would be more accessible in a decriminalized environment.

Why do you need a decriminalized environment to treat drug addiction? By the way have you ever been treated for drug addiction?

3. Drug use would be more open, so drug effects would be more transparent. It'd be easier to find an honest answer to what medical problems drugs cause, so would be a more effective deterrent in the long term.

Drug use is very transparent. Go down to where the homeless people stay. Most of them are drug addicts. If you want to legalize drugs you're going to create more homeless than Reagan did.

The simple fact is that prohibition is a policy failure, and always has been. Thanks to prohibition, we have half a million nonviolent drug offenders incarcerated in this country, and the substances sold in black markets controlled by violent gangs anyways.

Better to have a drug dealer in prison that at the corner store.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Kidicious

The same type of people tend to congregate here.

Said about me, Sava, Ned and chegitz guevara. Man, that is almost sig-worthy.

[Solomwi]

Better to have a drug dealer in prison that at the corner store.

Why, when putting a drug dealer in prison does absolutely nothing to stem the flow of drugs to the consumers? At least in the corner store, you know where and who he is.