Re: Drug Laws Kill - Proof

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

> I wonder if any of you have ever asked yourselves, as I have, whether

> the government has any economic interest in continuing the drug ban.

> It seems to me that, first of all, the economic effect of drug dealing

> has become so huge that abandoning the policy of drug prohibition

> would cause major monetary disruptions, and second, that so many drugs

> could not possibly reach the United States if the government did not

> have some interest in protecting the drug trade.

There is a new book, reviewed in today's NYTimes Book review, about the

" prison industry, " which suggests that it is there mainly for the benefits

to local economies rather than for the purpose of deterring crime.

The book is " Going Up The River, " by ph T. Hallinan. The review is at

http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/22/reviews/010422.22massint.html

Of course the drug prohibition laws account for a big fraction of our prison

population.

And you also have this vast army of AA counselor-types who lost employment

opportunities when the insurance companies stopped paying for 28-day

programs, many of whom moved into the coerced-treatment field in the 90's.

Among other things they are a lobbying force which has an interest in

keeping drugs illegal.

Remember when we were discussing Oklahoma Governor Keating, and

somebody found a speech of his where he announced his latest and greatest

" get-tough-on-drugs-and-drunk-drivers " plan, sharing the platform with two

" consultants, " one of them Hazelden lobbyist Cope Moyers and the

other an old friend of Keating's who happened to be the CEO of a major

prison-for-profit corporation? That's an example of how economic interests

get translated into government action. The prison corporation executive

(whose name I have forgotten) had originally been in gov't/law enforcement

before moving into the " private " sector.

And then you have the South American drug cartels, with a combined annual

gross income which exceeds the defense budget of the USA. That's a lot of

money, and I have to believe that a chunk of that money finds its way into

the pockets of gov't and law enforcement people here.

Which brings up another reason to keep the drug war going, namely to keep

our armed forces employed.

I don't think that there is actually a great deal of direct government

involvement in promoting the importation of drugs, though, beyond some

bribery at borders and such. The demand is sufficent to account for the fact

that a lot of stuff gets in.

--wally

[Guest guest]

I had a short correspondence with Mike Ruppert last year. He told me

he had over 17 years of " spiritual recovery. " He was leaving on a

five day trip and said he wanted to discuss my web site further with

me but I never heard from him again.

http://www.copvcia.com/

Tommy

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <kayleighs@m...>

>

>

> > I wonder if any of you have ever asked yourselves, as I have,

whether

> > the government has any economic interest in continuing the drug

ban.

> > It seems to me that, first of all, the economic effect of drug

dealing

> > has become so huge that abandoning the policy of drug prohibition

> > would cause major monetary disruptions, and second, that so many

drugs

> > could not possibly reach the United States if the government did

not

> > have some interest in protecting the drug trade.

>

>

>

> There is a new book, reviewed in today's NYTimes Book review, about

the

> " prison industry, " which suggests that it is there mainly for the

benefits

> to local economies rather than for the purpose of deterring crime.

>

> The book is " Going Up The River, " by ph T. Hallinan. The review

is at

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/22/reviews/010422.22massint.html

>

> Of course the drug prohibition laws account for a big fraction of

our prison

> population.

>

> And you also have this vast army of AA counselor-types who lost

employment

> opportunities when the insurance companies stopped paying for 28-day

> programs, many of whom moved into the coerced-treatment field in the

90's.

> Among other things they are a lobbying force which has an interest

in

> keeping drugs illegal.

>

> Remember when we were discussing Oklahoma Governor Keating,

and

> somebody found a speech of his where he announced his latest and

greatest

> " get-tough-on-drugs-and-drunk-drivers " plan, sharing the platform

with two

> " consultants, " one of them Hazelden lobbyist Cope Moyers and

the

> other an old friend of Keating's who happened to be the CEO of a

major

> prison-for-profit corporation? That's an example of how economic

interests

> get translated into government action. The prison corporation

executive

> (whose name I have forgotten) had originally been in gov't/law

enforcement

> before moving into the " private " sector.

>

> And then you have the South American drug cartels, with a combined

annual

> gross income which exceeds the defense budget of the USA. That's a

lot of

> money, and I have to believe that a chunk of that money finds its

way into

> the pockets of gov't and law enforcement people here.

>

> Which brings up another reason to keep the drug war going, namely to

keep

> our armed forces employed.

>

> I don't think that there is actually a great deal of direct

government

> involvement in promoting the importation of drugs, though, beyond

some

> bribery at borders and such. The demand is sufficent to account for

the fact

> that a lot of stuff gets in.

>

> --wally

[Guest guest]

I had a short correspondence with Mike Ruppert last year. He told me

he had over 17 years of " spiritual recovery. " He was leaving on a

five day trip and said he wanted to discuss my web site further with

me but I never heard from him again.

http://www.copvcia.com/

Tommy

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <kayleighs@m...>

>

>

> > I wonder if any of you have ever asked yourselves, as I have,

whether

> > the government has any economic interest in continuing the drug

ban.

> > It seems to me that, first of all, the economic effect of drug

dealing

> > has become so huge that abandoning the policy of drug prohibition

> > would cause major monetary disruptions, and second, that so many

drugs

> > could not possibly reach the United States if the government did

not

> > have some interest in protecting the drug trade.

>

>

>

> There is a new book, reviewed in today's NYTimes Book review, about

the

> " prison industry, " which suggests that it is there mainly for the

benefits

> to local economies rather than for the purpose of deterring crime.

>

> The book is " Going Up The River, " by ph T. Hallinan. The review

is at

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/22/reviews/010422.22massint.html

>

> Of course the drug prohibition laws account for a big fraction of

our prison

> population.

>

> And you also have this vast army of AA counselor-types who lost

employment

> opportunities when the insurance companies stopped paying for 28-day

> programs, many of whom moved into the coerced-treatment field in the

90's.

> Among other things they are a lobbying force which has an interest

in

> keeping drugs illegal.

>

> Remember when we were discussing Oklahoma Governor Keating,

and

> somebody found a speech of his where he announced his latest and

greatest

> " get-tough-on-drugs-and-drunk-drivers " plan, sharing the platform

with two

> " consultants, " one of them Hazelden lobbyist Cope Moyers and

the

> other an old friend of Keating's who happened to be the CEO of a

major

> prison-for-profit corporation? That's an example of how economic

interests

> get translated into government action. The prison corporation

executive

> (whose name I have forgotten) had originally been in gov't/law

enforcement

> before moving into the " private " sector.

>

> And then you have the South American drug cartels, with a combined

annual

> gross income which exceeds the defense budget of the USA. That's a

lot of

> money, and I have to believe that a chunk of that money finds its

way into

> the pockets of gov't and law enforcement people here.

>

> Which brings up another reason to keep the drug war going, namely to

keep

> our armed forces employed.

>

> I don't think that there is actually a great deal of direct

government

> involvement in promoting the importation of drugs, though, beyond

some

> bribery at borders and such. The demand is sufficent to account for

the fact

> that a lot of stuff gets in.

>

> --wally

[Guest guest]

I had a short correspondence with Mike Ruppert last year. He told me

he had over 17 years of " spiritual recovery. " He was leaving on a

five day trip and said he wanted to discuss my web site further with

me but I never heard from him again.

http://www.copvcia.com/

Tommy

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <kayleighs@m...>

>

>

> > I wonder if any of you have ever asked yourselves, as I have,

whether

> > the government has any economic interest in continuing the drug

ban.

> > It seems to me that, first of all, the economic effect of drug

dealing

> > has become so huge that abandoning the policy of drug prohibition

> > would cause major monetary disruptions, and second, that so many

drugs

> > could not possibly reach the United States if the government did

not

> > have some interest in protecting the drug trade.

>

>

>

> There is a new book, reviewed in today's NYTimes Book review, about

the

> " prison industry, " which suggests that it is there mainly for the

benefits

> to local economies rather than for the purpose of deterring crime.

>

> The book is " Going Up The River, " by ph T. Hallinan. The review

is at

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/22/reviews/010422.22massint.html

>

> Of course the drug prohibition laws account for a big fraction of

our prison

> population.

>

> And you also have this vast army of AA counselor-types who lost

employment

> opportunities when the insurance companies stopped paying for 28-day

> programs, many of whom moved into the coerced-treatment field in the

90's.

> Among other things they are a lobbying force which has an interest

in

> keeping drugs illegal.

>

> Remember when we were discussing Oklahoma Governor Keating,

and

> somebody found a speech of his where he announced his latest and

greatest

> " get-tough-on-drugs-and-drunk-drivers " plan, sharing the platform

with two

> " consultants, " one of them Hazelden lobbyist Cope Moyers and

the

> other an old friend of Keating's who happened to be the CEO of a

major

> prison-for-profit corporation? That's an example of how economic

interests

> get translated into government action. The prison corporation

executive

> (whose name I have forgotten) had originally been in gov't/law

enforcement

> before moving into the " private " sector.

>

> And then you have the South American drug cartels, with a combined

annual

> gross income which exceeds the defense budget of the USA. That's a

lot of

> money, and I have to believe that a chunk of that money finds its

way into

> the pockets of gov't and law enforcement people here.

>

> Which brings up another reason to keep the drug war going, namely to

keep

> our armed forces employed.

>

> I don't think that there is actually a great deal of direct

government

> involvement in promoting the importation of drugs, though, beyond

some

> bribery at borders and such. The demand is sufficent to account for

the fact

> that a lot of stuff gets in.

>

> --wally

[Guest guest]

As I recall, Szasz advocates only one law concerning drugs--truth in

labeling. And this does not mean that a label is even necessary. He

addresses this in " Our Right to Drugs. " If it is unlabled he calls it

a " pig in a poke " , and no one is forced to buy it, and if they are

foolish enough to take it, that is their business. However, if one

labels the container falsly, then that is fraud.

Tommy

> In a message dated 4/22/01 12:40:33 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> jmere@e... writes:

>

>

> > . It seems that, although Szasz believes

> > that drugs should not be illegal, he is also against them being

> > formally legalized in such a way that would inevitably require

> > government regulation. Anyone care to elaborate?

> >

>

> Szaz is a fierce libertarian, as I am. He definitely advocates

complete

> legalization of any and all substances that can be taken into the

human body.

> Further, he would not want to see them available only by

prescription, or

> regulated in such a way that they are de facto illegal. As to

specific sorts

> of regulations he criticizes, I don't recall those offhand.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

As I recall, Szasz advocates only one law concerning drugs--truth in

labeling. And this does not mean that a label is even necessary. He

addresses this in " Our Right to Drugs. " If it is unlabled he calls it

a " pig in a poke " , and no one is forced to buy it, and if they are

foolish enough to take it, that is their business. However, if one

labels the container falsly, then that is fraud.

Tommy

> In a message dated 4/22/01 12:40:33 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> jmere@e... writes:

>

>

> > . It seems that, although Szasz believes

> > that drugs should not be illegal, he is also against them being

> > formally legalized in such a way that would inevitably require

> > government regulation. Anyone care to elaborate?

> >

>

> Szaz is a fierce libertarian, as I am. He definitely advocates

complete

> legalization of any and all substances that can be taken into the

human body.

> Further, he would not want to see them available only by

prescription, or

> regulated in such a way that they are de facto illegal. As to

specific sorts

> of regulations he criticizes, I don't recall those offhand.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

As I recall, Szasz advocates only one law concerning drugs--truth in

labeling. And this does not mean that a label is even necessary. He

addresses this in " Our Right to Drugs. " If it is unlabled he calls it

a " pig in a poke " , and no one is forced to buy it, and if they are

foolish enough to take it, that is their business. However, if one

labels the container falsly, then that is fraud.

Tommy

> In a message dated 4/22/01 12:40:33 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> jmere@e... writes:

>

>

> > . It seems that, although Szasz believes

> > that drugs should not be illegal, he is also against them being

> > formally legalized in such a way that would inevitably require

> > government regulation. Anyone care to elaborate?

> >

>

> Szaz is a fierce libertarian, as I am. He definitely advocates

complete

> legalization of any and all substances that can be taken into the

human body.

> Further, he would not want to see them available only by

prescription, or

> regulated in such a way that they are de facto illegal. As to

specific sorts

> of regulations he criticizes, I don't recall those offhand.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Thanks for posting that, Mona. Just what I was looking for. Do you know the link to the site it is from?

Gee, I was nearly brain dead last night when I was tooling around the DRCNet.org site. It was there that I found it, so I would guess a search with Szasz' name would get that intro to pop up.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Thanks for posting that, Mona. Just what I was looking for. Do you know the link to the site it is from?

Gee, I was nearly brain dead last night when I was tooling around the DRCNet.org site. It was there that I found it, so I would guess a search with Szasz' name would get that intro to pop up.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Thanks for posting that, Mona. Just what I was looking for. Do you know the link to the site it is from?

Gee, I was nearly brain dead last night when I was tooling around the DRCNet.org site. It was there that I found it, so I would guess a search with Szasz' name would get that intro to pop up.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Thanks for posting that, Mona. Just what I was looking for. Do you

know the link to the site it is from?

Joan

> Joan's having raised Szasz's views on drug policy made me

curious

> enough to determine the parameters of his views, and I found the

introduction

> to Szazs' book OUR RIGHT TO DO DRUGS online. He completely opposes

drug

> prohibition/criminalization. As I surmised in my first reply to

Joan, he

> also objects to the prescription drug laws, and that is the kind of

> " regulation " he opposes as a " kinder, gentler " substitute for

> criminalization. Szasz believes -- as do I -- that one should be

free to

> purchase any substance one wishes, over the counter. Thus, he

writes as

> follows:

>

> " I am familiar with recent essays arguing the impracticality of

drug

> legalization. I share that view. The idea of selling cocaine as we

do

> cucumbers while preserving our prescription laws restricting the

sale of

> peftidlin is obviously absurd. But this proves only that unless we

are

> willing to come to grips with the profoundly paternalistic

implications and

> perilous anti-market consequences of prescription laws, which I

discuss in

> this book (especially Chapter 7), we are doomed to impotence vis-a-

vis our

> so-called drug problem. " The collectivist, " warned A. V. Dicey in

1914, the

> year the first law protecting us from dangerous drugs was

enacted, " never

> holds a stronger position than when he advocates the enforcement of

the best

> ascertained laws of health. " The result of our protracted drug-

protectionist

> policy is that we now find it impossible to re-legalize drugs -- we

lack both

> the popular will for it and the requisite legal-political

infrastructure to

> support it. We long ago decided that it is morally wrong to treat

drugs

> (especially foreign, plant-derived drugs) as a commodity. If we are

satisfied

> with that state of affairs and its consequences, so be it. But I

believe we

> ought to consider the possibility that a free market in drugs is

not only

> imaginable in principle, but, given the necessary personal

motivation of a

> people, is just as practical and beneficial as is a free market in

other

> goods. Accordingly, I support a free market in drugs not because I

think it

> is --at this moment, in the United States -- a practical policy,

but because

> I believe it is right and because I believe that -- in the long

run, in the

> United States -- the right policy may also be the practical policy.

End "

[Guest guest]

Thanks for posting that, Mona. Just what I was looking for. Do you

know the link to the site it is from?

Joan

> Joan's having raised Szasz's views on drug policy made me

curious

> enough to determine the parameters of his views, and I found the

introduction

> to Szazs' book OUR RIGHT TO DO DRUGS online. He completely opposes

drug

> prohibition/criminalization. As I surmised in my first reply to

Joan, he

> also objects to the prescription drug laws, and that is the kind of

> " regulation " he opposes as a " kinder, gentler " substitute for

> criminalization. Szasz believes -- as do I -- that one should be

free to

> purchase any substance one wishes, over the counter. Thus, he

writes as

> follows:

>

> " I am familiar with recent essays arguing the impracticality of

drug

> legalization. I share that view. The idea of selling cocaine as we

do

> cucumbers while preserving our prescription laws restricting the

sale of

> peftidlin is obviously absurd. But this proves only that unless we

are

> willing to come to grips with the profoundly paternalistic

implications and

> perilous anti-market consequences of prescription laws, which I

discuss in

> this book (especially Chapter 7), we are doomed to impotence vis-a-

vis our

> so-called drug problem. " The collectivist, " warned A. V. Dicey in

1914, the

> year the first law protecting us from dangerous drugs was

enacted, " never

> holds a stronger position than when he advocates the enforcement of

the best

> ascertained laws of health. " The result of our protracted drug-

protectionist

> policy is that we now find it impossible to re-legalize drugs -- we

lack both

> the popular will for it and the requisite legal-political

infrastructure to

> support it. We long ago decided that it is morally wrong to treat

drugs

> (especially foreign, plant-derived drugs) as a commodity. If we are

satisfied

> with that state of affairs and its consequences, so be it. But I

believe we

> ought to consider the possibility that a free market in drugs is

not only

> imaginable in principle, but, given the necessary personal

motivation of a

> people, is just as practical and beneficial as is a free market in

other

> goods. Accordingly, I support a free market in drugs not because I

think it

> is --at this moment, in the United States -- a practical policy,

but because

> I believe it is right and because I believe that -- in the long

run, in the

> United States -- the right policy may also be the practical policy.

End "

[Guest guest]

Thanks for posting that, Mona. Just what I was looking for. Do you

know the link to the site it is from?

Joan

> Joan's having raised Szasz's views on drug policy made me

curious

> enough to determine the parameters of his views, and I found the

introduction

> to Szazs' book OUR RIGHT TO DO DRUGS online. He completely opposes

drug

> prohibition/criminalization. As I surmised in my first reply to

Joan, he

> also objects to the prescription drug laws, and that is the kind of

> " regulation " he opposes as a " kinder, gentler " substitute for

> criminalization. Szasz believes -- as do I -- that one should be

free to

> purchase any substance one wishes, over the counter. Thus, he

writes as

> follows:

>

> " I am familiar with recent essays arguing the impracticality of

drug

> legalization. I share that view. The idea of selling cocaine as we

do

> cucumbers while preserving our prescription laws restricting the

sale of

> peftidlin is obviously absurd. But this proves only that unless we

are

> willing to come to grips with the profoundly paternalistic

implications and

> perilous anti-market consequences of prescription laws, which I

discuss in

> this book (especially Chapter 7), we are doomed to impotence vis-a-

vis our

> so-called drug problem. " The collectivist, " warned A. V. Dicey in

1914, the

> year the first law protecting us from dangerous drugs was

enacted, " never

> holds a stronger position than when he advocates the enforcement of

the best

> ascertained laws of health. " The result of our protracted drug-

protectionist

> policy is that we now find it impossible to re-legalize drugs -- we

lack both

> the popular will for it and the requisite legal-political

infrastructure to

> support it. We long ago decided that it is morally wrong to treat

drugs

> (especially foreign, plant-derived drugs) as a commodity. If we are

satisfied

> with that state of affairs and its consequences, so be it. But I

believe we

> ought to consider the possibility that a free market in drugs is

not only

> imaginable in principle, but, given the necessary personal

motivation of a

> people, is just as practical and beneficial as is a free market in

other

> goods. Accordingly, I support a free market in drugs not because I

think it

> is --at this moment, in the United States -- a practical policy,

but because

> I believe it is right and because I believe that -- in the long

run, in the

> United States -- the right policy may also be the practical policy.

End "

[Guest guest]

http://www.bomis.com/rings/szasz/

> In a message dated 4/22/01 3:44:23 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> jmere@e... writes:

>

>

> > Thanks for posting that, Mona. Just what I was looking for. Do you

> > know the link to the site it is from?

> >

>

> Gee, I was nearly brain dead last night when I was tooling around

the

> DRCNet.org site. It was there that I found it, so I would guess a

search

> with Szasz' name would get that intro to pop up.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

> I see no reason that the amount spent on drugs would increase if

drugs

> were legal. Indeed, if they were legal, the market price would

> decline, since no one would be paying for the risk involved in

> marketing them. Perhaps you mean they would be heavily taxed to

> discourage consumption, which is not only possible but likely, but

> still, I can't see why the price would be above what it is now.

>

Kayleigh, my point was not that the price of legal drugs would be

higher than the price of illegal drugs. Rather it was that the total

amount spent on drugs might be higher after

legalization/decriminalization. If the quantity demanded grew by a

greater percentage than the price declined, the total amount spent

would increase.

I believe that alcohol consumption in the US increased by two- or

three-fold when prohibition ended. It seems quite possible to me

that the consumption of marijuana might show a similar marked

increase if it were legalized.

It is conceivable that the price might increase after legalization,

since part of the cost of drugs is not reflected in the illegal

market price. The rational drug consumer would add to the illegal

market price his estimate of the cost of getting caught multiplied by

the likelihood of being aprehended, etc.

For instance, if a consumer was willing to pay $40 an ounce for

marijuana, he might be willing to pay $60 an ounce if he could do so

without facing any legal reprecussions.

[Guest guest]

Does any one know where this is located? I saw it the other day after following a link someone posted here, but didn't bookmark it. Maybe a search for "Milton Friedman" would turn it up.

It is almost certainly available at the DRCNet.org site, prolly in the Schaffer Library. A search there with the term "Friedman" should unearth it.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Does any one know where this is located? I saw it the other day after following a link someone posted here, but didn't bookmark it. Maybe a search for "Milton Friedman" would turn it up.

It is almost certainly available at the DRCNet.org site, prolly in the Schaffer Library. A search there with the term "Friedman" should unearth it.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Does any one know where this is located? I saw it the other day after following a link someone posted here, but didn't bookmark it. Maybe a search for "Milton Friedman" would turn it up.

It is almost certainly available at the DRCNet.org site, prolly in the Schaffer Library. A search there with the term "Friedman" should unearth it.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Hi Stuart,

>

> I believe that alcohol consumption in the US increased by two- or

> three-fold when prohibition ended. It seems quite possible to me

> that the consumption of marijuana might show a similar marked

> increase if it were legalized.

I suspect there would be a segment of the population who would begin

to use (or go back to using) a drug once it were decriminalized/

legalized. I'm sure there is a segment of the population who doesn't

use something only because of the fact it is illegal. The size of the

population is something we can only speculate about.

In my mind marijuana certainly should be legal. It is much less

harmful any way you look at it than alcohol. Other things such as

heroin or cocaine are a bit stickier...although I must say I agree

with Mona on the costs of prohibition regarding them.

Some of this stuff we could debate all day and not get anywhere much

- it would take doing the experiment to get the data. It *would* be a

huge change in our society if drugs were legal and it would help some

people, but I also think it would harm others. Unfortunately, I don't

think we'll get the chance to find out anytime soon. Legalizing drugs

would be like saying " The State Perceives that you are all Adults and

are Responsible for Your Own Actions. " Somehow that doesn't seem

likely to me!

Are there other countries/situations where they have put some of these

ideas into practice? The Netherlands? Where was " Needle Park? " I

vaguely remember seeing something that showed it was emptied out now,

but don't remember the reasons. Anyone?

[Guest guest]

Hi Stuart,

>

> I believe that alcohol consumption in the US increased by two- or

> three-fold when prohibition ended. It seems quite possible to me

> that the consumption of marijuana might show a similar marked

> increase if it were legalized.

I suspect there would be a segment of the population who would begin

to use (or go back to using) a drug once it were decriminalized/

legalized. I'm sure there is a segment of the population who doesn't

use something only because of the fact it is illegal. The size of the

population is something we can only speculate about.

In my mind marijuana certainly should be legal. It is much less

harmful any way you look at it than alcohol. Other things such as

heroin or cocaine are a bit stickier...although I must say I agree

with Mona on the costs of prohibition regarding them.

Some of this stuff we could debate all day and not get anywhere much

- it would take doing the experiment to get the data. It *would* be a

huge change in our society if drugs were legal and it would help some

people, but I also think it would harm others. Unfortunately, I don't

think we'll get the chance to find out anytime soon. Legalizing drugs

would be like saying " The State Perceives that you are all Adults and

are Responsible for Your Own Actions. " Somehow that doesn't seem

likely to me!

Are there other countries/situations where they have put some of these

ideas into practice? The Netherlands? Where was " Needle Park? " I

vaguely remember seeing something that showed it was emptied out now,

but don't remember the reasons. Anyone?

[Guest guest]

Hi Stuart,

>

> I believe that alcohol consumption in the US increased by two- or

> three-fold when prohibition ended. It seems quite possible to me

> that the consumption of marijuana might show a similar marked

> increase if it were legalized.

I suspect there would be a segment of the population who would begin

to use (or go back to using) a drug once it were decriminalized/

legalized. I'm sure there is a segment of the population who doesn't

use something only because of the fact it is illegal. The size of the

population is something we can only speculate about.

In my mind marijuana certainly should be legal. It is much less

harmful any way you look at it than alcohol. Other things such as

heroin or cocaine are a bit stickier...although I must say I agree

with Mona on the costs of prohibition regarding them.

Some of this stuff we could debate all day and not get anywhere much

- it would take doing the experiment to get the data. It *would* be a

huge change in our society if drugs were legal and it would help some

people, but I also think it would harm others. Unfortunately, I don't

think we'll get the chance to find out anytime soon. Legalizing drugs

would be like saying " The State Perceives that you are all Adults and

are Responsible for Your Own Actions. " Somehow that doesn't seem

likely to me!

Are there other countries/situations where they have put some of these

ideas into practice? The Netherlands? Where was " Needle Park? " I

vaguely remember seeing something that showed it was emptied out now,

but don't remember the reasons. Anyone?

[Guest guest]

>In my mind marijuana certainly should be legal. It is much less

>harmful any way you look at it than alcohol.

And the evidence for this?

Is overwhelming. Marijuana is one of the most benign substances conceivable. It is virtually impossible to overdose on it, and there is not one documented case of it causing death or serious bodily harm.

> Other things such as

>heroin or cocaine are a bit stickier...although I must say I agree

>with Mona on the costs of prohibition regarding them.

>

> but I also think it would harm others.

And this cost..medical,lost work, etc does not seem factored into the discussions. Probihition costs vs legal drug costs probably does weigh in favor of legal drugs, but avoiding the truly complex and far extending economic issues.

There would almost certainly be an increase in use of cocaine if it were legal, and some increase in addiction. However, it is very hard to conceive of the costs of legal cocaine outweighing the costs of prohibition, which are absolutely astronomical.

> Legalizing drugs

>would be like saying "The State Perceives that you are all Adults and

>are Responsible for Your Own Actions." Somehow that doesn't seem

>likely to me!

And the issue presented that one has the right to ingest anything they choose ignores many facets of other existing problems. Herbal remedies are unregulated. As such, most herbal concoctions to not provide what the manufacturer claims. Fortunately with most, the effects are negligible (there is little proven efficacy); with potent drugs, and no information about adulteration, quality, content, etc; one can be in harms way despite the drug purveyor's claim. How does this work within an "informed consent" tort system? And does not one have the right to informed consent? Or can we unleash unscrupulously labeled 'hard' drugs,much like the herbal industry does today? No drug laws have the potential to kill as well.

Seagrams doesn't sell wood grain alcohol, which can blind people, because it isn't interested in paying out whopping jury awards. During Prohibition however, when there was no meaningful way to hold distillers accountable short of a machine gun, people were frequently blinded; hence the phrase "blind drunk." One would expect the same phenomenon to hold true if the illicit drugs were legalized. Potency would have to be included on the package, just as % of alcohol is now printed on booze bottles. Drug product would also be free of impurities, unlike the heroin and cocaine sold on the streets. No more bleach, glue or flour in the heroin.

Unless, of course, the companies marketing the drugs don't care about large verdicts.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

>In my mind marijuana certainly should be legal. It is much less

>harmful any way you look at it than alcohol.

And the evidence for this?

Is overwhelming. Marijuana is one of the most benign substances conceivable. It is virtually impossible to overdose on it, and there is not one documented case of it causing death or serious bodily harm.

> Other things such as

>heroin or cocaine are a bit stickier...although I must say I agree

>with Mona on the costs of prohibition regarding them.

>

> but I also think it would harm others.

And this cost..medical,lost work, etc does not seem factored into the discussions. Probihition costs vs legal drug costs probably does weigh in favor of legal drugs, but avoiding the truly complex and far extending economic issues.

There would almost certainly be an increase in use of cocaine if it were legal, and some increase in addiction. However, it is very hard to conceive of the costs of legal cocaine outweighing the costs of prohibition, which are absolutely astronomical.

> Legalizing drugs

>would be like saying "The State Perceives that you are all Adults and

>are Responsible for Your Own Actions." Somehow that doesn't seem

>likely to me!

And the issue presented that one has the right to ingest anything they choose ignores many facets of other existing problems. Herbal remedies are unregulated. As such, most herbal concoctions to not provide what the manufacturer claims. Fortunately with most, the effects are negligible (there is little proven efficacy); with potent drugs, and no information about adulteration, quality, content, etc; one can be in harms way despite the drug purveyor's claim. How does this work within an "informed consent" tort system? And does not one have the right to informed consent? Or can we unleash unscrupulously labeled 'hard' drugs,much like the herbal industry does today? No drug laws have the potential to kill as well.

Seagrams doesn't sell wood grain alcohol, which can blind people, because it isn't interested in paying out whopping jury awards. During Prohibition however, when there was no meaningful way to hold distillers accountable short of a machine gun, people were frequently blinded; hence the phrase "blind drunk." One would expect the same phenomenon to hold true if the illicit drugs were legalized. Potency would have to be included on the package, just as % of alcohol is now printed on booze bottles. Drug product would also be free of impurities, unlike the heroin and cocaine sold on the streets. No more bleach, glue or flour in the heroin.

Unless, of course, the companies marketing the drugs don't care about large verdicts.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

>In my mind marijuana certainly should be legal. It is much less

>harmful any way you look at it than alcohol.

And the evidence for this?

Is overwhelming. Marijuana is one of the most benign substances conceivable. It is virtually impossible to overdose on it, and there is not one documented case of it causing death or serious bodily harm.

> Other things such as

>heroin or cocaine are a bit stickier...although I must say I agree

>with Mona on the costs of prohibition regarding them.

>

> but I also think it would harm others.

And this cost..medical,lost work, etc does not seem factored into the discussions. Probihition costs vs legal drug costs probably does weigh in favor of legal drugs, but avoiding the truly complex and far extending economic issues.

There would almost certainly be an increase in use of cocaine if it were legal, and some increase in addiction. However, it is very hard to conceive of the costs of legal cocaine outweighing the costs of prohibition, which are absolutely astronomical.

> Legalizing drugs

>would be like saying "The State Perceives that you are all Adults and

>are Responsible for Your Own Actions." Somehow that doesn't seem

>likely to me!

And the issue presented that one has the right to ingest anything they choose ignores many facets of other existing problems. Herbal remedies are unregulated. As such, most herbal concoctions to not provide what the manufacturer claims. Fortunately with most, the effects are negligible (there is little proven efficacy); with potent drugs, and no information about adulteration, quality, content, etc; one can be in harms way despite the drug purveyor's claim. How does this work within an "informed consent" tort system? And does not one have the right to informed consent? Or can we unleash unscrupulously labeled 'hard' drugs,much like the herbal industry does today? No drug laws have the potential to kill as well.

Seagrams doesn't sell wood grain alcohol, which can blind people, because it isn't interested in paying out whopping jury awards. During Prohibition however, when there was no meaningful way to hold distillers accountable short of a machine gun, people were frequently blinded; hence the phrase "blind drunk." One would expect the same phenomenon to hold true if the illicit drugs were legalized. Potency would have to be included on the package, just as % of alcohol is now printed on booze bottles. Drug product would also be free of impurities, unlike the heroin and cocaine sold on the streets. No more bleach, glue or flour in the heroin.

Unless, of course, the companies marketing the drugs don't care about large verdicts.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Stuart, to me your arguments don't reflect the economic realities of

supply and demand, but I am no economist, so I'll refer you to Milton

Friedman. There is an interview with him on the net somewhere in

which he both addresses the points you make and also analyzes drinking

patterns after Prohibition was ended. Does any one know where this is

located? I saw it the other day after following a link someone posted

here, but didn't bookmark it. Maybe a search for " Milton Friedman "

would turn it up.

> > I see no reason that the amount spent on drugs would increase if

> drugs

> > were legal. Indeed, if they were legal, the market price would

> > decline, since no one would be paying for the risk involved in

> > marketing them. Perhaps you mean they would be heavily taxed to

> > discourage consumption, which is not only possible but likely, but

> > still, I can't see why the price would be above what it is now.

> >

>

>

> Kayleigh, my point was not that the price of legal drugs would be

> higher than the price of illegal drugs. Rather it was that the

total

> amount spent on drugs might be higher after

> legalization/decriminalization. If the quantity demanded grew by a

> greater percentage than the price declined, the total amount spent

> would increase.

>

> I believe that alcohol consumption in the US increased by two- or

> three-fold when prohibition ended. It seems quite possible to me

> that the consumption of marijuana might show a similar marked

> increase if it were legalized.

>

> It is conceivable that the price might increase after legalization,

> since part of the cost of drugs is not reflected in the illegal

> market price. The rational drug consumer would add to the illegal

> market price his estimate of the cost of getting caught multiplied

by

> the likelihood of being aprehended, etc.

>

> For instance, if a consumer was willing to pay $40 an ounce for

> marijuana, he might be willing to pay $60 an ounce if he could do so

> without facing any legal reprecussions.