decline reported in Afghan poppy crop

[Imran Siddiqui]

Did you read my post or you just don't believe it?

I just don't believe that legalization, by itself, leads to less use. There are probably other reasons involved if use did fall. It makes no sense to say that legalization (which ends up ending the monopolistic pricing) would have that effect.

The Netherlands, however, did not enforce the law when on the books, so it was de facto decriminalized, if not de jure.

[Fake Boris]

True, but don't you think that at least it demonstrates that legalization has little or no effect on consumption?

EDIT: thus, even acknowledging that "OMFG DR0GS are t3H SATAN!!!!11!!", prohibition is costly and vastly innefective for no reason?

EDIT 2: I think it's true that the law wasn't much enforced even before, but still figures between 25-35% are standard for almost all Western countries, regardless of legal status.

[Ramo]

Kid, you're making huge assumptions about the economics of drugs, such as the demand for drugs being relatively elastic and the demand function not significantly changing with legalization, and not providing any sort of empirical corroboration for your claims. All the evidence we have - from alcohol Prohibition in the US to the recent legalization and decriminalization experiments in Europe that suggest otherwise; that legalization doesn't lead to massive increase increases in drug use, and thus your assumptions are wrong.

But let's suppose that you're right.

Since drugs would be relatively elastic, if we legalize them and raise taxes on them high enough, consumption would also go down considerably. Not only that, we'd virtually eliminate the black market for drugs - markets with practically no protection for consumers, labor, competition, or innocent bystanders. We'd free hundreds of thousands of people from prisons and reduce the need for police considerably. As a consequence of that, we'd reduce gov't expenditures by countless billions. And we'd increase gov't revenues due to these excise taxes by a similarly huge amount. Further, some of this money could be spent on actually helping the poor drug addicts instead of locking them up. Doesn't that sound so much better than the draconian policies that our gov't is pushing?

[Ramo]

Incidentally Kid, since you believe that pot should be illegal, surely you believe that alcohol and tobacco, both worse drugs, should be illegal as well?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
Kid, you're making huge assumptions about the economics of drugs, such as the demand for drugs being relatively elastic and the demand function not significantly changing with legalization

I didn't say the demand was elastic, but I don't believe the demand curve changes with legalization. That means that people want drugs because they are illegal, and I don't find that a reasonable assumption. And I don't really care about this that much to do research.

But let's suppose that you're right.

Since drugs would be relatively elastic, if we legalize them and raise taxes on them high enough, consumption would also go down considerably. Not only that, we'd virtually eliminate the black market for drugs - markets with practically no protection for consumers, labor, competition, or innocent bystanders. We'd free hundreds of thousands of people from prisons and reduce the need for police considerably. As a consequence of that, we'd reduce gov't expenditures by countless billions. And we'd increase gov't revenues due to these excise taxes by a similarly huge amount. Further, some of this money could be spent on actually helping the poor drug addicts instead of locking them up. Doesn't that sound so much better than the draconian policies that our gov't is pushing?

If the demand is elastic though that would mean that a lot more people whould be using drugs, and that's not acceptable to very many people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

True, but don't you think that at least it demonstrates that legalization has little or no effect on consumption?

No. I'm sure legalization will result in greater consumption (a little bit more, but more nonetheless). I think in order to show the status of legalization having an effect on consumption, I've have to see some sort of statistical inverse correlation (legalization, then less consumption).

Not only that, we'd virtually eliminate the black market for drugs - markets with practically no protection for consumers, labor, competition, or innocent bystanders.

And of course (maybe it doesn't even have to be said) destroy much of organized crime in an instant.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
Incidentally Kid, since you believe that pot should be illegal, surely you believe that alcohol and tobacco, both worse drugs, should be illegal as well?

I'm definitely opposed to hard drugs being legalized, but only moderately opposed to marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco being legal.

[Ramo]

I didn't say the demand was elastic, but I don't believe the demand curve changes with legalization. That means that people want drugs because they are illegal, and I don't find that a reasonable assumption. And I don't really care about this that much to do research.

If demand isn't very elastic how is legalization going to create more poverty than Reagan, as you claimed?

If the demand is elastic though that would mean that a lot more people whould be using drugs, and that's not acceptable to very many people.

Don't see what your point is...?

[Ramo]

I'm definitely opposed to hard drugs being legalized, but only moderately opposed to marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco being legal.

You never drink alcohol?

[Berzerker]

OB

It's documented that the percentage of marijuana consumers in the Netherlands went from 32% to 27% after the legalization. In other countries where it remained illegal, like Canada, it rose.

Does that include immigrants who moved into the country because of the greater freedom? The concern of legalising drugs in a small part of a landmass with lots of people is concentrating one group of people. For example, imagine if booze was banned in north America except for Central Park in NYC. I imagine we'd see a big jump in the number of booze drinkers move to NYC and Central Park would become booze alley.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo

I didn't say the demand was elastic, but I don't believe the demand curve changes with legalization. That means that people want drugs because they are illegal, and I don't find that a reasonable assumption. And I don't really care about this that much to do research.

If demand isn't very elastic how is legalization going to create more poverty than Reagan, as you claimed?

Good Point.

If the demand is elastic though that would mean that a lot more people whould be using drugs, and that's not acceptable to very many people.

Don't see what your point is...?

If demand is elastic then a drop in the price will result in much more consumption. We already agree that it's not elastic, so nevermind.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo

I'm definitely opposed to hard drugs being legalized, but only moderately opposed to marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco being legal.

You never drink alcohol?

I've done a lot of things.

[Berzerker]

If you drink booze Kid, should booze drinkers be punished because of drunk drivers who kill people or drunk husbands and wives who abuse each other and their children?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If you drink booze Kid, should booze drinkers be punished because of drunk drivers who kill people or drunk husbands and wives who abuse each other and their children?

I'm opposed to legalizing booze. That's not really punishment though.

[Berzerker]

Would that mean decriminalisation of booze with only dealers punished? Basically what happened under alcohol prohibition?