h a l f b a k e r yExperiencing technical difficulties since 1999
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
As a libertarian, I know it's not worth trying to change people's mind about religion, socialism or the drug war since it's a total waste of time and people tend to get very nasty when discussing those subjects. So this isn't an attack on the drug war, rather an attempt to win it since it's not going
away anyway. (Unfortunately in my opinion)
I'm sure even the staunchest drug warrior would agree that cutting the profit motive of the drug lords would be something worth doing. This could be done by glutting the supply.
In the unpopulated areas where drugs are typically smuggled, regularly drop bales of drugs, clearly marked saying "This is an illegal bale of heroin/cocain/weed whatever. To be in possession of this is a felony and if caught you'll spend 3 to 5 years in prison."
Ok, so the drug runners will obviously ignore that, take it into the supply chain and the price of drugs will drop from very expensive to practically free. Then take the money you save on the drug war and spend it on treatment of addiction, the root of the problem.
Drug cartels will have a hard time paying for their hit men and drug armies when the cost of cocain is 5 bucks a pound.
This would not stop the fabulous drug war. You could still arrest people for possession, transportation and sale of drugs, you just wouldn't have anybody doing it for big profits any more. Then, like I said, put the mony you save into treating addiction.
Here's one...
http://www.guardian...nations-afghanistan
[RayfordSteele, Mar 07 2011]
Drug decriminalization in Portugal
http://www.scientif...g-decriminalization
[ldischler, Mar 09 2011]
Americans want pot legalized?
http://stash.norml....galization-2011.jpg
According to this poll evidently. VIews seem to be changing. [doctorremulac3, Mar 09 2011]
Lift Restrictions on Unprocessed Materials
Lift Restrictions o...processed Materials
Another line that hits the drug-barons where it hurts (in the wallet) that both manages to keep drugs illegal in order to limit harm, but which de-incentivises the large supply chain by lowering the cost of participation, and allowing good old libertarian free-market economics to get involved. And all without any Big Government Intervention. [zen_tom, Mar 11 2011]
[link]
|
| |
Sorry, I only put the part about putting the money you save into treatment for addiction twice. My bad. |
|
| |
Put the millions you save on the drug war into treatment of addiction. |
|
| |
(Oh well, there goes Max's bun) |
|
| |
I'll also repeat that you can still throw people in jail for drug offenses, people just won't be making a profit any more. That coupled with some resultant freed up funding for community drug treatment facilities could be a real boon to people afflicted with drug addiction. |
|
| |
You can still have the beat cop taking in guys for possession, just loose the ships, helicopters, AWACS and other expensive equipment that doesn't stop the drug flow, rather just raise the price of what gets through. |
|
| |
I'll also point out, I think drugs (and booze and cigarettes) are horrible things that destroy lives, and while I think they should be legal, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try everything we can to minimize the horrible impact they have on people's lives. |
|
| |
Thank you Max, you're a bigger man than me for
bunning after tolerating a broadside of sarcasm. |
|
| |
A gentleman true to form. |
|
| |
[doctorremulac3] I believe I see a flaw. Enormous
quantities
of oil were dumped in
Saudi Arabia a long time ago, and somehow, that failed to
depress oil prices. Why? Because of a cartel called OPEC
which restricted supply, to support prices. Would drug
cartels do otherwise? |
|
| |
One solution might be to dump product at the *end* of the
supply chain, i.e. drop it in the streets of North American
cities. If the dumping is sufficiently diffuse and
distributed, that might prevent the formation of cartels. |
|
| |
I don't think drug cartels would have much control once the state become the drug supplier and start giving it away. The cost to the state would be almost nil since these drugs are not very hard to make. Why buy from a drug cartel when there's bails of this stuff you can find out in the desert for free? The street distribution idea is more honest, I'm just thinking that would be even harder to sell, not that this would be easy or even possible to sell. |
|
| |
That being said, I actually think a variation of the putting it on the street idea's sort of been done to some extent by distributing drugs to addicts through distribution centers, presumably with mandatory counselling. I think in Denmark or someplace up there. |
|
| |
I'd be curious to see how those programs have worked. It's hard to get a straight answer on that stuff because it depends on who you talk to. |
|
| |
Assuming you mean cigarettes, (fags means something different in the U.S.) I'll try to solve that problem later. |
|
| |
I had thought it might be a good idea to have life and health insurance for the user included in the price of cigarettes. Maybe I'll post that. |
|
| |
Sorry, I've seen this proposed too many times to
award a bun. |
|
| |
Really? I haven't heard the idea before but that doesn't mean somebody else hasn't though of it. |
|
| |
Obviously I'll yank it if you can show where it's been proposed before. |
|
| |
That's the second time I've seen a double anno entry. Is this a glitch or is it some new thing the hipsters are doing that I don't know about? |
|
| |
Wouldn't you like to know. ;-) |
|
| |
Wouldn't you like to know. ;-) |
|
| |
"I had thought it might be a good idea to have life and health insurance for the user included in the price of cigarettes. Maybe I'll post that." |
|
| |
In the UK, tobacco tax revenue equals approx 10% of the total budget of the national health service. I suggest we're already funding healthcare through tobacco taxation. |
|
| |
What's the difference between a legal drug and illegal drug? |
|
| |
Legalization would achieve the same end without putting people in jail. So all you achieve here is maintaining the US prison industry, which is the largest in the world. |
|
| |
//"This is an illegal bale of heroin/cocain/weed whatever. To be in possession of this is a felony and if caught you'll spend 3 to 5 years in prison."// |
|
| |
So the easiest thing for the "good guys" would be to simply drop one in the street then arrest whoever touches it. |
|
| |
You'd have to let it get into the system for this to
work though so you'd have to give the guys picking
it up some freedom to get them. |
|
| |
But if they make it too obvious, like driving down
main street with a bail of heroin in the bed of
their pickup truck, drag 'em in. |
|
| |
It would be a little weird, but it would absolutely
drive the drug cartels out of business, that's not
debatable. That's what this idea is mainly about.
We've got a genuine war down in Mexico that's
killed thousands of people. I'd rather do
something a little weird to solve the problem and
end the bloodshed than nothing. |
|
| |
Or you could make drugs legal, but since that's not
going to happen. |
|
| |
This is flawed assumption. The reason drugs are so
expensive is due to the loss and high cost of
distribution. weed or cocaine would be like any
other cash crop and cost in the dollars per pound
range if it wasn't for the high risk and cost of
distribution. |
|
| |
However giving the cartels their product for free
would only lower their cost of manufacture not
how expensive it is for them to distribute it. |
|
| |
In some countries they've tried a similar approach
where heroine etc is freely available but only at
government sponsored safe injection sites. This
curbs demand because government has the power
to make anything uncool. Thus drugs are seen as
pathetic not desirable. |
|
| |
cost of distribution is not the problem. Then all
the people who grow their own weed would be
taking the biggest bite out of the cartels. |
|
| |
As well, presumed peace officers who spend their time placing large amounts of a controlled substance into a public area ? The illegality is mind boggling, to say nothing of the possibility for accidental ingestion by innocent passers-by. very much [-] |
|
| |
Where did you get the idea I was saying give this
to
the drug cartels? I'm saying put it in the countries
and the areas where the drugs are being used in so
anybody can get it and bypassing the cartels all
together. This would put them out of business. |
|
| |
But hey, I'd love to hear some other ideas. |
|
| |
Price also helps regulate consumption of drugs somewhat. If they are too cheap users will probably overdose more often. |
|
| |
I think a lot of the criticism of this idea is the automagically adjusting price mechanism. Even if the market is glutted with drugs the prices are going to be the same unless someone starts undercutting -- that will probably get whoever that is killed. Drugs are one of those inelastic goods that sell even when the buyers can't afford them. |
|
| |
Well, the laws of supply and demand still hold. If
anybody can go out to the desert and get it free
it's not going to cost a lot. |
|
| |
Cheaper drugs might cause people to od more I
suppose, but good arguments can be made for
any prohibition. People don't talk about it but
alcoholism, associated disease and drunken
violence went way down during alcohol
prohibition. Of
course it spawned organized crime just like this
new prohibition has. |
|
| |
I'd support addiction centers where the addicts
can get their drugs for free if they attend
treatment programs that at least plant some hope
of quitting and some methods of quitting in their
mind. |
|
| |
In somebody else's neighborhood though, not
mine of course. |
|
| |
"alcoholism, associated disease and drunken violence went way down during alcohol prohibition" |
|
| |
I believe the opposite is true. Alcohol moved into the domain of organised crime, drinking establishments were hidden away where the unruly and unscrupulous could get away with anything. Moonshine was far more dangerous in manufacture, distribution and consumption than legally produced beer or spirits. Other alcohol related problems (eg domestic violence) were kept quiet for fear of prosecution. |
|
| |
It is possible that there was a reduction in reported alcohol problems. |
|
| |
As soon as you make something illegal and drive it into the criminal domain, you lose control and you lose the ability to collect accurate data. |
|
| |
What Twizz just said.
As for the idea. Legalise & tax. It's really not any government's business to be dictating to the general populous what they can and can't consume. |
|
| |
Well, here's the thing I was looking at but I've
heard this before: |
|
| |
//After prohibition was implemented alcohol
continued to be consumed. However, how much
compared to pre-Prohibition levels remains
unclear. Studies examining the rates of cirrhosis
deaths as a proxy for alcohol consumption
estimated a decrease in consumption of 10-20%.
One study reviewing city-level drunkenness arrests
came to a similar result. And, yet another study
examining "mortality, mental health and crime
statistics" found that alcohol consumption fell, at
first, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-
Prohibition level; but, over the next several years,
increased to about 60-70 percent of its pre-
prohibition level.// |
|
| |
Nobody's more anti prohibition than me and I
agree with your bottom premise, but slipping up
in the facts only gives the drug warriors fodder for
their argument. |
|
| |
I would just say the slight gains caused by
prohibition were far outweighed by the organized
crime it fostered. You can point out that product
safety had no oversight but to say alcohol related
illness went up is probably going against the facts. |
|
| |
This one's about a dead split, let me throw
another idea out there. |
|
| |
quite a few people got very ill drinking contaminated or toxic concoctions that would never have done so if alcohol had been legal. Also quite a few died in gang violence and enforcement, not to mention the many who went to jail for criminal involvement. and the wasted money. and the loss of respect for the whole system of government. If you want to keep the price of drugs down make them available in a legal form, no other mechanism will work. |
|
| |
Well, yea, agreed, I just don't see it happening. |
|
| |
Here in California a legalization bill just lost by a
considerable margin, I think like 60/40, and
Californians think of themselves as the only true
holders of the liberal torch of progressivism. They
drive their little smugmobiles like the Toyota
Pious and sniff their farts out of a champagne
glass. They're full of shit but you'd think they'd get
their progressiveness together enough to stop
throwing people in jail for smoking a little weed
now and then. |
|
| |
When it comes down to considering some real
changes everybody turns into Sergeant Friday from
Dragnet. "It's the law ma'm. Book 'em Danno." I
may be getting my obscure old tv cop drama
references mixed up but I don't see drugs being
legalized. Unfortunately. |
|
| |
There's three things that aren't going to change
about America but that doesn't stop it from being
argued about endlessly. Drugs will always be illegal
and abortions and guns will always be legal, so
there's something to piss everybody off. That's
what we're all about. Libertarians have illegal
drugs, liberals have legal guns and conservatives
have legal abortions to bitch about. At the end of
the day it gives everybody something to to be
pissed off about. It's good to anger up the blood
every once in a while, otherwise you get
complacent and turn into Guatemala. |
|
| |
Glut of supply, or oversupply, would indeed bring about a temporary drop in price. Until someone (probably the badies with guns and resources) started scooping up and wharehousing the oversupply. See diamond market. |
|
| |
Several Scandanaivian countries have state run supply networks and areas where you will not be prosecuted for procurement, possession or use. These are strictly controlled, expensive programs. Interestingly, there was a study: that said drug use, of those on offer under this system, declined over a period of twenty years. |
|
| |
In Washington and Oregon legalization is well under way under the guise of "medicine". |
|
| |
Drug decriminalization worked in Portugal, but is unlikely to be tried in the US. Our anti-drug propaganda is too effective and our population too puritanical to even consider the evidence that decriminalization reduces drug use. Besides, putting 1.5 million citizens in jail every year creates useful employment for thousands of jailers, judges and cops.
Perhaps, though, Mexico will elect a new President who will see the futility of fighting our drug war and completely legalize all drugs. He could then collect taxes from the cartels, and in return protect them from US prosecution. In fact, he might demand that the US stop interdicting shipments of Mexican goods. |
|
| |
Can't blame the puritanical right wing alone on
this one. We legalized medical marijuana in
California and it was Bill Clinton that enacted
federal mandates to try to get it overthrown. |
|
| |
His DOJ tried revoking the federal licenses of
doctors who prescribed medical marijuana among
other things. |
|
| |
Bill Clinton was a pot smoking hippie and a liberal.
(I think we can all assume he lied when he said he
was too stupid to figure out how to smoke weed) |
|
| |
All our recent presidents used pot and/or cocaine, but they are playing to the masses, and they know the masses are too puritanical to consider the evidence that legalization decreases drug use, and criminalization increases it. Of the present candidates, Ron Paul may be the only one for legalization (at the federal level). This won't get rid of the profit motive, however, unless most of the states do the same. |
|
| |
I don't know if this collection of polls is true, but it
says currently most Americans favor legalizing weed,
something I didn't know until checking. |
|
| |
It seems legit. Maybe there is hope. |
|
| |
And you think there's some mechanism by which the wishes of the population might influence the actions of government? Not in the systems that the US and UK call democracy. |
|
| |
I'm afraid that money is probably the only thing that gets politician's attention. |
|
| |
If you come up with a proposal to legalize drugs that will fill the politician's pockets things will happen. Unfortunately, the concept of legalizing weed and taxing it, the one proposal on the table that addresses the reality of greedy politicians doesn't make a lot of sense. |
|
| |
Weed isn't that popular compared to booze and cigarettes and it's a very small fraction of the price to produce. If it were legal, it could easily even be grown at home, something you can't really do with booze and cigs. When people talk about the billion dollar market for weed, they're talking about the billion dollar market for illegal weed. |
|
| |
Big difference between that and something you could legally grow in your backyard that requires about half the attention of say a rosebush. |
|
| |
//I don't know if this collection of polls is true// |
|
| |
The last three of those data points seem to be from the future. |
|
| |
Yea, I caught that. Might impugn the veracity a bit. |
|
| |
/billion dollar market for illegal weed/
There is no reason that one would have to let free market pressures push down the cost of weed. Weed could be taxed such that the price stayed the same. ATF could become WTF. |
|
| |
//ATF could become WTF.// |
|
| |
It might lack in intimidation factor though. |
|
| |
"Hello sir, I'm agent Remulac of the WTF. Please stop giggling, this is serious." |
|
| |
//Weed could be taxed such that the price stayed the same.// |
|
| |
You'd just recreate the problem. The more you tax something the more you develop a black market for it. |
|
| |