The Drug War Thread

[ricketyclik]

I read that addicts are likely to have higher than average amounts of dopamine receptors, which is a genetic trait. The same trait is present in sufferers of OCD, trainspotters, bird watchers, gambling addicts, gamers and internet forum frequenters.

[korn469]

I think it's pretty clear legalizing drugs would be a net benefit for society. The best arguments for keeping the drug war going seem to be "I'm heavily invested in alcohol, tobacco, and firearms industries" or "I build prisons for a living" ... or just "I hate people in general and the more suffering there is, the better".

I'm not so certain that legalization would be a net benefit. I think there is the possibility of a net benefit, but also the possibility of a net negative.

Where I'm from, most of the drugs are legal and purchased on insurance, with some type of copay, which artificially lowers the cost of the drugs to below retail. Up until recently doctor shopping was a big problem, where drug abusers went to several doctors complaining about pain and received prescriptions from multiple doctors. Other sources of pills was pain medication stolen from family members, prescription fraud (which seems like its decreasing) and drugs stolen or embezzled from pharmacies.

If the government legalized everything, and made it available at retail, at retail prices plus taxes to help fund rehab, there would be a big increase in the price of drugs at retail compared to what some people can currently pay to obtain them. If the taxes are too high then the black market channels wouldn't die out, and may become a more attractive activity because although the rewards for trafficking drugs would go down somewhat, the risks from trafficking drugs would go down substantially. However, the potential of the drug war turning into the tax evasion war would also be high.

According to the CDC Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

It's quite likely that several drugs could equal or surpass alcohol in terms of deaths and years of potential life lost if there were legal and as readily available as alcohol. I'd put methamphetamines, cocaine and opioids being the most likely candidates. Others like marijuana and mushrooms would probably add very little to the overall increase in yearly deaths.

There would need to be a study showing how deaths would go down due to less violence in drug trafficking, and less deaths from complications related to impurities compared to increasing numbers of overdoes from more widespread use of drugs. Also maybe studies of GDP growth. It would presumably grow as fewer people are incarcerated over possession and distribution charges, yet it could decrease if more people are dying and if more people are getting high instead of doing something productive.

Overall corruption in law enforcement should go down though, as should police brutality.

I dunno, it's a complicated problem and I doubt there is any panaceas. Probably just different forms of bad outcomes.

[Aeson]

Life expectancy for the user is not an issue. There are countless ways a person can voluntarily lower their life expectancy (ice cream is one of my favorites), and they should have the right to choose do so. Also, given that self-medication is already possible through many avenues, it's not clear that there are people who wish to self-medicate who are not already doing so. Illicit drugs are readily available, and legal methods of self-medication are profuse.

All the negatives at best are just guesswork, and generally only negatives if you operate under the assumption drug users are doing something they don't want to do.

Some of the positives are blatantly obvious:

- $50 billion a year (just in the US) in expenses saved.
- Tens of thousands of people free from prison.
- Users free to seek help if they want it without fear of legal consequences.
- Increased tax revenues.
- Higher wages for those involved in drug production.
- Safer working conditions for those involved in drug production, transport, and sales.
- Safer product due to better quality control.
- More efficient production and transport methods.

There are a lot of other positives that may take time to be fully realized, such as breaking the stranglehold of cartels in certain regions, decreased gang funding, decreased human trafficking/slavery. Things that would lead to an increase in quality of life for 10s of millions or 100s of millions of people around the world.

[C0ckney]

If the government legalized everything, and made it available at retail, at retail prices plus taxes to help fund rehab, there would be a big increase in the price of drugs at retail compared to what some people can currently pay to obtain them. If the taxes are too high then the black market channels wouldn't die out, and may become a more attractive activity because although the rewards for trafficking drugs would go down somewhat, the risks from trafficking drugs would go down substantially. However, the potential of the drug war turning into the tax evasion war would also be high.

i think it's clear that drugs prices would go down following legalisation. the costs associated with illegality are enormous. one has to prioritise not getting caught over other factors; both production and distribution must be hidden as far as possible. there are costs from drugs being seized by police, no legal recourse or insurance if they are damaged or stolen, there are uncertainties in the supply chain that complicate long-term planning. there is also the very real of those involved in the trade going to prison and this carries a premium for the risk, as well as reducing the numbers prepared to enter the business. all of these things push prices upwards. once these factors are removed the price will come down significantly, even with the costs of taxation and regulation.

It's quite likely that several drugs could equal or surpass alcohol in terms of deaths and years of potential life lost if there were legal and as readily available as alcohol. I'd put methamphetamines, cocaine and opioids being the most likely candidates. Others like marijuana and mushrooms would probably add very little to the overall increase in yearly deaths.

again this assumes that people would use drugs more if they were legal. i don't think there's much evidence that this is the case from countries that have tried a decimalisation approach. perhaps if certain drugs became available that weren't before, then this might increase usage, but i think there are other factors at work here.

aeson: i agree with most of your post but i think this is incorrect.

- Higher wages for those involved in drug production.

i think in general that wages and profits in the drug trade would go down, because of the loss of the risk premium and the entry of more people into the market. obviously conditions overall would improve with legal protections, the decline of violence etc.

[Aeson]

think in general that wages and profits in the drug trade would go down, because of the loss of the risk premium and the entry of more people into the market. obviously conditions overall would improve with legal protections, the decline of violence etc.

I specifically said wages for those involved in production would be higher. That is assuredly true given much of current illicit drug production is via slave/forced/child labor.

[C0ckney]

Ideally I'd like to see drugs legalized and some of the tax revenue put into addiction researc - right now addiction treatment has a horrible success rate.

from my limited experience i'd say that's true.

a lot of the focus for drugs like heroin is on management, methadone programmes and suchlike, rather than getting people off drugs. i understand the reason, it's often very hard to get people off drugs or to resolve the underlying problems that cause them to use hard drugs. there are practical limits to what can be done to change people's lives; in many cases management is the best that can be hoped for.

[C0ckney]

I specifically said wages for those involved in production would be higher. That is assuredly true given much of current illicit drug production is via slave/forced/child labor.

well i disagree on both counts. legalisation in the west would be unlikely to improve conditions for workers in the third world; one only needs to look at the terrible conditions suffered by workers producing legal products to understand this. a lot of drugs are produced in the west and the wages of those involved would fall for the reasons i outlined. there would also be a movement of production to western countries for certain drugs.

[loinburger]

from my limited experience i'd say that's true.

a lot of the focus for drugs like heroin is on management, methadone programmes and suchlike, rather than getting people off drugs. i understand the reason, it's often very hard to get people off drugs or to resolve the underlying problems that cause them to use hard drugs. there are practical limits to what can be done to change people's lives; in many cases management is the best that can be hoped for.

The bizarre thing about using methadone or buprenorphine to manage opiate addiction is that they make ultimately kicking the habit even harder (this isn't usually the intention with methadone, but that's the intention of buprenorphine treatment) - all of the heroin addicts I've met who have tried methadone/buprenorphine say that the withdrawal from heroin (or Oxycontin or whatever) is a walk in the park compared to the withdrawal from methadone/buprenorphine.

[C0ckney]

yes that is very true, and is one of the unfortunate consequences of the management approach.

it would actually be better to proscribe heroin in such cases.

[Aeson]

well i disagree on both counts. legalisation in the west would be unlikely to improve conditions for workers in the third world; one only needs to look at the terrible conditions suffered by workers producing legal products to understand this.

Even the worst corporations in the world pay their workers better than actual slaves.

a lot of drugs are produced in the west and the wages of those involved would fall for the reasons i outlined.

There aren't a lot of wage employees growing illicit drugs in the West. It's mainly small scale owner-operator type stuff. So you would have to compare ownership to ownership in those cases. Ownership (in the West) would see a dramatic increase in profits. The Cartels and warlords would see a dramatic decrease in profits ... which is a big positive.

In cases of actual wage/salary, there would be much better jobs (engineers, technicians, researchers) opened up by modernization of production, rather than just some peasants in the third world being herded around by guys with guns.

there would also be a movement of production to western countries for certain drugs.

There would be a lot of it. Which means much higher paying jobs. Even minimum wage jobs would be a dramatic improvement ... and as I said, many of the jobs would be highly skilled jobs that would demand much more than minimum wage.

[C0ckney]

how much of the world's drug production do you think is done by slaves?

i don't see why ownership vs ownership is more relevant than simply looking at those involved in production.

i think you underestimate the sophistication of the production that already takes places in the west (see ecstasy factories in the UK and holland for example). of course there will be new opportunities and new jobs opened up by legalisation, but the wages of those involved in production are likely to fall for the reasons i have outlined. a decent guide would be looking at workers involved in the alcohol and tobacco industries.

[kentonio]

If it was legalized there would be a strong case for companies manufacturing new drugs that provided highs without the dangers of the existing old fashioned products. Would you have as many people getting into heroin for instance if there was a legally available synthetic that provided some comparable effect? Or even if there was just a freely available and legal MDMA based product?

[pchang]

Addiction is influenced by genetics. However, crack cocaine and meth are incredibly addictive. I advocate controlling those 2 drugs because studies have shown that trying them even once can leave the vulnerable addicted. In addition, their effects are pretty bad. I also advocate controlling Krokodil for the same reasons. But, that is about it.

[Aeson]

how much of the world's drug production do you think is done by slaves?

Far too much.

i don't see why ownership vs ownership is more relevant than simply looking at those involved in production.

Because you can't say an owner-operator's income is all wages, most of it would be from ownership if you did separate it out. I specifically said wages.

i think you underestimate the sophistication of the production that already takes places in the west (see ecstasy factories in the UK and holland for example). of course there will be new opportunities and new jobs opened up by legalisation, but the wages of those involved in production are likely to fall for the reasons i have outlined. a decent guide would be looking at workers involved in the alcohol and tobacco industries.

Compare wages paid to workers between those ecstasy factories and coca/poppy farms. Alcohol and tobacco don't have any good info to offer. Tobacco was never illegal so there's no comparison to be made. Alcohol was only illegal for a relatively short period of time, and much of the input into it's production was still legal.

With legalization wages will increase. Production will move out in the open where workers have legal recourse. Much of production will move to developed countries where pay is higher. Almost all of production will be more efficient, with more product produced per worker, using methods which require more technical jobs. Transport/seizure/protection/corruption costs will be vastly reduced leaving more of the value of the product to go towards ownership and production.

Prices can go down while wages and even earnings go up. There's no immutable correlation between the two.

[C0ckney]

If it was legalized there would be a strong case for companies manufacturing new drugs that provided highs without the dangers of the existing old fashioned products. Would you have as many people getting into heroin for instance if there was a legally available synthetic that provided some comparable effect? Or even if there was just a freely available and legal MDMA based product?

there are already legally available opiates, which are widely used in medicine; in fact abuse of these is a big problem in some places (see korn's posts). most of physical dangers from drugs come from either impurities or a lack of clarity about strength. with legalisation, a system of clear labelling and controls could be set up for things like heroin, so that people would know what they are ingesting. this would pretty much stop deaths from overdoses and impure products, but of course it does little to solve the problem of addiction to opiates.

MDMA is totally different to heroin. basically the former goes up and the latter goes down; you couldn't really replace one with the other. i do think though that we could save health services and polices forces millions, and make the world a better place (), by encouraging people to consume MDMA instead to alcohol.