Basejumper.com - archive

How to stop the drug wars

I am for stronger better legal drugs and the process of natural selection. then Keith Richards would be king of all

It's interesting the way the article describes "harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway". I'm sure there are a lot of Heliboogie participants who would describe Norway's drug policy as anything but liberal.

To list just some of the benefits of legalization:
1) Increased purity. Deaths and serious injury caused by the use of illegal narcotics are disproportionately a result of people using contaminated substances, or from thinking they're taking one drug and actually taking another.
2) Increased variety. Cocaine is incredibly harmful to the human cardiovascular system. However, there are a multitude of other drugs that are almost indistinguishable from cocaine and are vastly less dangerous (methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, etc.)
3) Tax revenues. There's no reason for us to continue spending USD 40 bn a year fighting a failed war on drugs.
4) Less availability to minors. It's easier for most minors to obtain marijuana and other soft drugs than it is to obtain alcohol. Legalisation would result in more control over narcotics distribution, and would make drugs less likely to fall into the hands of minors.
5) A massive decrease in crime.
6) A massive decrease in the prison population.

The costs of legalisation:
1) Increased consumption of narcotics (not necessarily more "people" using drugs, but definitely more frequent use by those people who already use them).
2) A possible net increase in health problems among users, though this is far from certain. There would definitely be a net decrease in injuries from contamination. There would likely be a net decrease in overdosing. There would likely be a net decrease in disease. There would likely be a net increase in cardiovascular diseases, smoking-related cancers, depression, psychosis, and a variety of other mental disorders.
3) Increased health care costs from treating problem 2. It may or may not be possible to offset these increased costs using tax revenues from drug sales and tax savings from the reduced prison population and canceled War on Drugs.

Having not visited Sweden or Norway
yet, I am ignorant of their drug laws.

I do know the USA spends way too
much money implementing a policy
that does not work and ends up with
the highest incarceration rate of any
country on the planet.

Prohibition made Al Capone and other
bootleggers rich and did not stop the
people from drinking.

I agree with your hypotheses about
the probable impacts of this idea.

Economists refer to social problems such
as drug use, prostitution, etc. with the term
"Negative Externality" which is something
that causes a third party to incurr a cost.

For example, pollution, second hand smoke,
etc. all cause an innocent bystander some
measure of cost or irritation.

Hence excise taxes, aka sin taxes, are
levied to mitigate these negative externalities.

In areas where prostitution is legal the working
ladies suffer less violence, since "pimps" are
not needed as in other areas.

In areas where fireworks are legal, we see less
severe injuries than compared to Florida where
anything beyond a sparkle is illegal.

In Europe where topless models sell soap and
porn is on for free late night in Spain we see
less rape cases.

Also, when was the last time you heard of
someone getting shot during a beer deal?

My drug policy is that i must do more and more everyday.

D. genetically engineered plant virus that wipes out drug crops?

Colm, when it comes to human beings
wanting to alter their consciousness we
know which came 1st, Demand not Supply.

Little kids spin around in circles to create
a dizzy feeling, then later as adults we do
other things like spar, jog, have sex, and
some do drugs, hell some lick poison toads
and make jailhouse toliet wine etc.

Hence trying to combat the problem by
dealing with the Supply side won't work.

Greenmachine,
So you are saying its futile to try to change the supply side. But you are implying that it's also futile to change the demand side.

Therefore, no economic solution?

And I'm not saying I'd pick choice D, necessarily. But it could be a prototypical 4th option.

I think that like everything else on this planet, it is a conflict that evolves over time. The successful stand-alone solutions are one-in-a-million... the rest of the problems proceed as arms races for a long time before one side (or both) gives up the ghost. Whether you are a strain of MRSA or a poppy farmer in Afghanistan.

And if you could theoretically unleash a virus that wiped out only poppy crops and cocaine crops, that would, at least, shift the playing field in a fundamental way. If I could do it, i probably would.. just for sheer amusement!

Apologies to xkcd, who gets credit for the original idea

http://www.xkcd.com

Good point sir and thank you for the green salutation


Decriminalizing or legalizing drugs ARE economic solutions:
minimize negative externalities, reduce the profits of drug
dealers and terrorist cells, collect taxes, and use the funds
to further education and rehab facilities, which would have
a small to medium impact on the demand side.

Oh, and regarding the supply side, if we could get customers
to buy safer products at a lower price from a government
approved source then we could regulate the market, of course
it would not be perfect but better than the current situation.

I agree with your sentiment that cocaine, opium, and heroin
are bad news!! But remember, under the current situation
they have to quite often commit crimes to pay for their
over-priced habits, which affects you and me.

The reason I am all for abortion, homosexuals rights, and
even flag burning is because it does not affect me, I don't
personally like any of those things but I want all of us to
have the liberty to do what we want unless it has a big
negative affect on other people (an externality).

Lastly, please do NOT forget sir that under the current system
some people will spend more time in jail for an ounce of pot
than some rapists, over 1% of USA citizens are in prison, and
teenagers in highschool have easier access to drugs than alcohol.

The union

I choose to be in the group of people that don't understand why Alcohol is legal & regulated and weed is not!

That's a really informative documentary - thanks for the link.

It glosses over some counterarguments, but all the major points are valid.

My take on your original poll choices:
A. Legalize: increases both supply and demand, frees up legal resources, plus raises tax revenue.
B. Decriminalize: increases demand, and frees up enforecement resources without tax revenue benefit
C. Stronger drug laws: attemps to decrease demand, and requires more legal resources

I dunno. sometimes i think folks want to legislate these changes in hopes of an instant cure-all.

I think its important to remember that many choices are mutually compatible, and that reducing drug use in society has no single solution.

My choice D would, in theory, decrease supply and free up legal resources. At the same time science and technology would benefit. It would be a fairly long term option, both in implementation and outcome. Other choices are better parenting, improving education, confronting societal woes that contribute to drug abuse, etc... but folks always put the difficult options off until last.

I'm not sure I understand why legalizing drugs would necessarily result in lower drug prices AND less drug abuse in the long term. And if drug use goes up, what happens to the cost society pays for health care? What if that cost absorbs all the tax revenue on drug sales?

I agree that the legal structure is messed up when a pot dealer can get more prison time than a rapist. But that's an issue unto itself.

I dont think society would suffer much from legalizing pot. but it would be better to phase it in gradually. if you just made a single sweeping change then you'll see a lot of bad adjustment issues in society.

(not so) incidentally, do you think Bush's first term tax cuts had a role to play in the current fiscal fiasco?

I personally think subsidizing fast food and junk food
has contributed more to the decline of overall health
in America and in turn health care costs than drugs.


Isn't that what prohibition did in the 1920's?


As for prices being lower, this is simple economics.
The more risky something is the more it costs!!
That is true when it comes to buying products,
buying services, starting a business, and even
borrowing money.

Hence, if the risk went down then criminals would
not be compensated for the risk and the price of
course would be lower. I can go on and on about
this topic but I think you're smart so I will stop
there unless you need more information on pricing.


As for demand going down in the long run, just a
hunch on my part, nothing factual to back it up
more anecdotal analogies I mentioned up board
regarding more permissive laws tending to make
things less taboo, hence people care much less.

Unfortunately the video was removed
before I got a chance to watch it...

Many Moslem's agree with you, they
have open and casual use of pot
but for them alcohol is forbidden.

my point is that we should regulate and legalize pot along with alcohol and tabaco. I don't want drugs, in general, to be connected with religion. Religion is not that bad as long as its kept private and not used as a method of mass control (propaganda religion). Many religion propaganda methods are similar with the propaganda methods used for mass control shown the Adam Curtis movie "The century of Self". When religion is kept private and personal makes life better and it gives a meaning but ...!

A little extra...

The US focuses mainly on the supply side spending approximately $40 billion,as the article says. I'm not sure but I dont think this estimate takes into account the billions given away to foreign governments for the war on drugs. So the total amount spent on the war on drugs is likely to be a lot higher.

These supply side policies are ineffective because the elasticity of the demand curve for addicts is highly inelastic, i.e. not very sensitive to changes in price, focusing on supply side policies will only raise the price and have little change in the quantity consumed. When the price goes up addicts have to find money somewhere so they likely turn to income generating crimes, e.g. robbery, burglary, and larceny. This creats the negative externalities discussed by Greenmachine.

Treating it as a disease like many European nations, focusing on demand side policies will have a more favorable social outcome.

I completely agree.