Why are most politicians in Western Democracies lawyers?

[Kuciwalker]

The argument against the war on drugs is way, way simpler than what's being argued, actually: the war on drugs didn't work. It failed, we lost, we should stop implementing policies that don't work just because we wish they would.

[giblets]

If cocaine becomes more expensive that implies that the supply has dropped and people on the margin will stop using cocaine or never start. So it's a balancing act.

Maybe. When someone first uses cocaine they probably don't plan on using it very much so I wouldn't expect them to be very price sensitive, and addicted people are not very price sensitive for obvious reasons.

[Kuciwalker]

gribbler, the idea that the price elasticity of demand for addictive drugs is zero is ridiculous.

[Jon Miller]

That's a different issue because parents are being entrusted with making decisions for others, rather than simply making decisions for themselves. There is nothing wrong with the government taking children away from cocaine addicted parents who are not taking proper care of their children. Running a "war on drugs" will just make cocaine more expensive so the cocaine addicted parents will spend even less on caring for their kids.

Cocaine using parents having babies is terribly mistreating their babies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_babies

Increasing the number of disabled children is not a good thing.

I think you libertarian people don't understand how foolish people people, nor how much people influence each other. Nor how often people continue to do things that make them miserable.

JM

[Dauphin]

don't plan on using it very much so I wouldn't expect them to be very price sensitive

What?

More likely that if you are seeking to get someone hooked on your product you will offer it at a discount, or free sample it as it were.

[giblets]

gribbler, the idea that the price elasticity of demand for addictive drugs is zero is ridiculous.

I didn't say it was zero. Why wouldn't it be small?

[GePap]

And that's why we have laws against stabbing people. What's youre point?

We have laws against stabbing for a lot of reasons, but the point remains that there are possible economic acts which are self-rational bu have very serious consequences on others. A caveat of course is that we have laws against stabbing a member of your own group - we did not always have laws against stabbing some outsider and taking their land (just ask most aborigine groups).

Another obvious example where rational individuals could come to a conflict is "intellectual theft" like sharing a song or a movie. The very notion that a person can "own" intellectual property in the same manner they can own physical property is a government created and granted exclusive title and not everyone would agree with the idea that a person, upon buying some piece of entertainment, could be fined or imprisoned for making copies of it if they intend to sell it. I am not arguing about the validity of those laws, but the fact that such laws exists because of the obvious consequences to the original source of the intellectual property, which shows that sometimes a society as a whole decides that it is in its interests to stop individuals from doing what they want to do because of some perceived greater societal cost.

[Hauldren Collider]

The argument against the war on drugs is way, way simpler than what's being argued, actually: the war on drugs didn't work. It failed, we lost, we should stop implementing policies that don't work just because we wish they would.

Not sure which war on drugs you're referring to. Do you mean the Mexican police and military action aimed at basically taking back the government from gangsters? If so what makes you think Mexico has lost? I think it'd be a bad idea for Mexico to quit the field there...

Also grib, JM just called you libertarian....

[Kuciwalker]

Jon, the entire drug-addicted parents thing is strawman. There are agency issues involved.

[Jon Miller]

Also grib, JM just called you libertarian....

I wasn't responding to just Grib.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Jon, the entire drug-addicted parents thing is strawman. There are agency issues involved.

So legalize coke/etc, but make it so that coke is packaged with birth control?

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Another obvious example where rational individuals could come to a conflict is "intellectual theft" like sharing a song or a movie. The very notion that a person can "own" intellectual property in the same manner they can own physical property is a government created and granted exclusive title and not everyone would agree with the idea that a person, upon buying some piece of entertainment, could be fined or imprisoned for making copies of it if they intend to sell it.

Thank you, GePap, for identifying a widely known market failure to which we apply the government remedy suggested by economic theory. This supports your argument... how?

The existence of market failures which justify government intervention doesn't mean government intervention is always justified. You have to explain where the market failure is first and then show that your remedy actually improves outcomes.

Jesus Christ, I've been through this same argument with you half a dozen times. When will you get a ****ing clue?

[Kuciwalker]

So legalize coke/etc, but make it so that coke is packaged with birth control?

JM

I have neither the data nor the expertise to speculate about the ideal government policy wrt parental obligations.

[Kuciwalker]

I didn't say it was zero. Why wouldn't it be small?

At a very minimum you've got to account for a substantial income effect.

[C0ckney]

the fact that cocaine and heroin are illegal and we still have lots of babies being born addicted to drugs is hardly a convincing argument for drugs remaining illegal...