Quote from hapaboy:
I disagree. If legalized, drugs would become cheaper, correct? It is proven economics that as a commodity becomes cheaper, demand rises. Why wouldn't hard drugs follow this pattern?
I personally would not start doing cocaine because it was legal and cheap, but what makes you think others wouldn't? By legalizing it and giving it the equal stature of alcohol and tobacco, the message being sent is that instead of a drink or a cigarette, it's okay to do a line of cocaine. Or some heroin....or crystal meth....or some acid, etc. Legalization would remove the stigma attached to dangerous drugs, and would IMHO lead to a new wave of experimenters.
Why wouldn't others (besides you and I)? Because drugs are currently not
prohibitively expensive. Like I said, virtually everyone who would want to do drugs is already doing them.
As for the 'social message' being sent, that's kinda bad luck there for you, isn't it? I mean, let's face it, social norms evolve. Maybe you don't like it that homosexuality is becoming more and more acceptable in society, bad luck for you. I don't really see "I just don't like it" as a very compelling argument, do you?
Furthermore, as drug use enters the mainsteam more and more, there will also be greater and greater education and understanding of what is involved with drugs. No one will be able to shy away from the issue and sweep it under the rug as is currently being done. Honestly, having known many 'normal' drug users (my cousin, an IB vice prez, for eg), that just do it recreationally, I hardly expect society to collapse because people can do what they do anyway, just now do it legally.
As for your falling prices increasing demand, that's not strictly true either. Demand is quite capable of maintaining its level with falling prices being caused by
increased supply. Either way, it's much more likely that
existing users will up their intake, coupled with some occasional recreational use, rather than a huge wave of new hard core addicts.
For example, crack is a cheaper but more potent version of cocaine. When crack hit the streets in the 80's, it created an epidemic that greatly increased the number of addicts.
But again, mostly amongst current drug users.
So now we have more addicts. Many hard drugs develop a tolerance in the users, causing them to have to consume more of the drug in order to get the same high they achieved previously with lesser amounts. Drugs may be cheaper with legalization, but there are more addicts now who have to commit crimes to support their tolerance-increasing habits.
That's based on your theory that we will get all these new hard core addicts. Whereas, like I said, pretty much everyone that consumes such high levels of drugs is already doing so.
Furthermore, even amongst hard core users, believe it or not, hapaboy, they still actually do have more to their lives than just drug consumption. Lol. I've been friends with some pretty hardcore heroin addicts and, this may shock you, some even actually had jobs. Sure, they weren't the happiest campers when they couldn't get a hit, but I can also guarantee you that they didn't just spend every minute of their lives high, even during times when they had plenty of supply.
Do the legalizers thus suggest that an unlimited supply of drugs be made available free of charge to users as their tolerance increases? If not, where will these addicts get the funds to buy the steadily increasing amounts of drugs they require? The same way they always have: crime.
Like I said, you seem to think that addicts will want to do nothing else but get high every spare minute of the day. That's just not true.
Depending on how much prices fall as a result of legalization it's quite likely that crime to finance habits will decrease substantially.
Finally, would the black market for drugs really go away? Supposing legalization occurs and a company like Merck gets into the hard drug business. Let's say it's selling a gram of cocaine for $50. Isn't a black market going to emerge regardless of the price in order to undercut Merck? And wouldn't that black market be driven by the same cartels or producers that exist today? Would the Cali cartel, for example, just decide to call it a day because of legalization? Wouldn't they fight tooth and nail to not only keep their grip on the market share of addicts but to use violence against Merck? They aren't normal businessmen, after all! They are hardened, violent criminals! So wouldn't they go after Merck's board, or labs, or scientists, etc? And wouldn't they also terrorize their addict customers with threats and violence to ensure that they buy the black market drugs?
In my opinion, legal companies started by entrepreneurs will likely be the lowest cost producers. Perhaps not immediately but in time I think the forces of capitalism will ensure that this happens. So there won't really be anyone to undercut.
Minus their huge drug income, these cartel leaders etc all of a sudden don't look so scary. Like you said, we probably can expect them to put up a fight, but in time they are sure to the way of the hoola hoop.
I agree that it is very easy for kids to get drugs. I think legalization would make it worse. Most kids, if they're raised properly, respect the law for the most part, or know that it's "wrong" to do drugs. By removing the stigma of drugs through legalization, I fear that would send a message that it's okay to do drugs once you're a certain age, as is the case with alcohol and tobacco.
Sorry hapaboy, I think that is just highly naive thinking. Got kids? They are 'properly raised'? You may just wanna check.
Your above point really relates to the fact that you just don't like drugs. You may seem them as the preserve of low lifes, for example. I don't know. But as I said, "I just don't like you doing that Johnny" has never been a compelling argument. I actually see the legalization and loss of stigma attached to drug use as likely to decrease this kind of usage, as many kids do it solely to rebel and be cool.
I don't know about prison affecting the dealers. Drug dealing is arguably the most lucrative of the criminal professions. Why would a dealer go from dealing to burglary, for example? It would be like exchanging a six-figure income to McDonald's pay.
I don't know what kind of image you have of people that deal drugs, but, without putting an exact percentage on it, significant numbers are just normal, mild mannered kids with no predilection for violence looking for an extra buck. Sending these innocents to jail is virtually assured to make them more violent. And given the 'dirty' nature of the drug trade, the next time a problem occurs, is this kid gonna walk away or will his new found attitude take over and he resorts to fists/weapons? Come on man, prison is friggin' 'crime school'. It's a shame what we do to these people. Their lives are ruined for one of the dumbest laws of all time.
What are these principles? That the current drug war is a failure? If so, I agree wholeheartedly. But just because A isn't working doesn't mean we have to do the polar opposite and do Z, especially if Z will create even more problems and cause more casualties.
No, not that the drug war is a failure. The principle is that free people should be free to decide what they can consume as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. It just doesn't get any simpler than that. Yes, their consumption has social costs. And, as you know, so does the overconsumption of hamburgers, and driving cars at excess speed etc.
