PeakTrader.com

administrator · Site Admin Joined: 28 Dec 2005 Posts: 12651

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=1975783401212901990

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=90263507506846518

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=7607871088603663368

-------

PeakTrader said...

It's ironic, decriminalization of marijuana and the crime of using marijuana both facilitated criminal activity.

-------

Larry G said...

I'm unclear on how/why decriminalization has caused crime...

-------

PeakTrader said...

Larry, marijuana is the only illegal drug that had an increase in demand, most likely because of decriminalization.

-------

Larry G said...

but how does an increase in demand mean crime?

-------

PeakTrader said...

Ask the drug lords.

--------

Larry G said...

but alcohol no longer has crime lords... perhaps some folks with stills.. but organized crime got out.

so why would the same thing not happen to pot?

just asking here....

---------

PeakTrader said...

Alcohol was socially acceptable and legal before prohibition.

And it's very popular today.

I guess, you can get rid of crime lords by making everything legal.

--------

Larry G said...

perhaps!

but I was truly wondering if something is fundamentally different with pot.

Meth and Oxycontin are also two biggies....

have you noticed that buying sudafed now... is restricted and they keep track of how much you buy?

---------

PeakTrader said...

Of course, some people will push alcohol, marijuana, other drugs, etc., regardless of the consequences.

---------

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=6552543960106638657

-------

PeakTrader said...

Portugal is not the U.S.:

Portugal drug law show results ten years on, experts say
Jul 1, 2011

"...(drug) users are today supported by a system that does not treat them as delinquents but as sick people."

My comment: Drug use in the U.S. is viewed more as recreation, medicine, or candy.

--------

PeakTrader said...

Morganovich says: "craig-do you not see the glaring flaw in your argument?...that happened when drugs were illegal...that mess exists anyway."

It shouldn't happen when it's illegal, and when it does, the law should be enforced.

Just imagine the utility tens of millions of Americans would derive if they weren't constrained by those annoying drunk driving laws or speed limits.

Sure, a few thousand people would likely get run over. Yet, the additional utility to those tens of millions would be enormous.

Anyway, I think, Boudreaux should take the liberty to move into a crack house (if he doesn't live in one already).

******

Larry says: "the irony is that there is rampant abuse of prescription drugs but it is done by a "nicer" "breed" of people, eh?"

I'm sure they set a fine example to their children.

******

No one has proven legalizing drugs would be a net benefit for society.

Yes, the benefits would exceed the costs for some people and the costs would exceed the benefits for other people.

Also, it's uncertain if the positive externalities would exceed the negative externalities or vice versa.

However, we do know many people will use illegal drugs regardless of how many deaths or injuries they cause, which says something about the addictive properties of illegal drugs, the disregard of other people, or a lack of sound judgement.

If I knew repealing a law, whether it's drug use, drunk driving, speed limits, etc. would be a net benefit for society, I'd be for it.

Here's what the DEA says about drug use:

"It’s clear from history that periods of lax controls are accompanied by more drug abuse and that periods of tight controls are accompanied by less drug abuse.

In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal — and, like some drugs today, seen as benign medicine not requiring a doctor’s care and oversight.

Addiction skyrocketed. There were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. That is twice as many per capita as there are today.

From 1984 to 1996, the Dutch liberalized the use of cannabis. Surveys reveal that lifetime prevalence of cannabis in Holland increased consistently and sharply. For the age group 18-20, the increase is from 15 percent in 1984 to 44 percent in 1996.

Specific federal drug legislation and oversight began with the 1914 Harrison Act, the first broad anti-drug law in the United States.

Enforcement of this law contributed to a significant decline in narcotic addiction in the United States.

Addiction in the United States eventually fell to its lowest level during World War II, when the number of addicts is estimated to have been somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000. Many addicts, faced with disappearing supplies, were forced to give up their drug habits.

The head of Holland’s best-known drug abuse rehabilitation center has described what the new drug culture has created: The strong form of marijuana that most of the young people smoke, he says, produces “a chronically passive individual—someone who is lazy, who doesn’t want to take initiatives, doesn’t want to be active—the kid who’d prefer to lie in bed with a joint in the morning rather than getting up and doing something.”

The growing Ecstasy problem in Europe, and the Netherlands’ pivotal role in Ecstasy production, has led the Dutch government to look once again to law enforcement. In May 2001, the government announced a “Five Year Offensive against the Production, Trade, and Consumption of Synthetic Drugs.”

The greatest weakness in the logic of legalizers is that the violence associated with drugs is simply a product of drug trafficking. That is, if drugs were legal, then most drug crime would end.

But most violent crime is committed not because people want to buy drugs, but because people are on drugs.

Drug use changes behavior and exacerbates criminal activity, and there is ample scientific evidence that demonstrates the links between drugs, violence, and crime.

According to the 1999 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) study, more than half of arrestees for violent crimes test positive for drugs at the time of their arrest.

Joseph A. Califano, Jr., of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University stated, “Drugs like marijuana, heroin and cocaine are not dangerous because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are dangerous.”

With drugs, teenagers would have an additional outlet: the highly organized illegal trafficking networks that exist today and that would undoubtedly concentrate their marketing efforts on young people to make up for the business they lost to legal outlets.

The cost of cocaine production is now as low as $3 per gram. At a market price of, say, $10 a gram, cocaine could retail for as little as ten cents a hit. That means a young person could buy six hits of cocaine for the price of a candy bar.

On the other hand, if legal drugs are priced too high, through excise taxes, for example, illegal traffickers will be able to undercut it.

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=4127503028690116738

------

PeakTrader said...

Tobacco has become less socially acceptable with declining advertising compared to alcohol.

Consequently, tobacco use is in decline, while alcohol use remains high.

So, do we want to legalize marijuana?

Deciphering Mixed Messages On Drinking And Health
January 16, 2012

Dr. Brewer is a graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine and School of Public Health, and is Board Certified in Preventive Medicine.

"Overall, we estimate that about one in six adults 18 and older, about 38 million adults in total, report binge drinking one or more times within the past 30 days.

If you look at this by income, one thing that surprises a lot of people is that the prevalence of binge drinking is actually higher among people with higher household incomes, whereas the amount consumed per binge episode, was actually higher among those with lower household incomes.

I think we have to look at social norms around drinking...a lot of people get the message that drinking to the point of intoxication is not only something that is socially acceptable but actually is encouraged.

I mean, we've just finished the holiday season here, and I think a lot of people tend to associate binge drinking with having a good time over the holidays, and New Year's Eve in particular.

I think it's also reflected that those social norms are also reflected in the policies that we have around alcohol.

Alcohol tends to be relatively inexpensive, it tends to be readily available in many communities and quite heavily advertised.

And we're particularly concerned in terms of advertising...that young people who are exposed to more advertising tend to drink more, as well.

So I think many of the factors that influence people's drinking behavior actually relate to the environment in which they're making their drinking decisions.

And in that way, the situation with alcohol is really very similar to what we know to be true for tobacco and what we also recognize to be true in terms of people's eating behavior, as well."

******

VangelV says: "Violent and property crime would fall as the dealers, gangs, and drug cartels are pushed out of business."

While the DEA says: "The greatest weakness in the logic of legalizers is that the violence associated with drugs is simply a product of drug trafficking. That is, if drugs were legal, then most drug crime would end. But most violent crime is committed not because people want to buy drugs, but because people are on drugs."

I doubt legalizing drugs will turn criminals into angels.

Why legalize it to get more of it and then tax it to get less of it?

So, government can spend the new revenues on the greater need for rehabilitation?

******

VangelV says "(legalization) will make drug use more affordable so that there is no need to engage in theft and violence to get the funds necessary to get the drugs."

So, you're saying people who commit crimes high on drugs will stop committing those crimes if they can afford their drugs?

--------

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=6445928053756018419

-------

Richard Rider, Chair, San Diego Tax Fighters said...

The number one beneficiary of our Drug War is NOT the prison guards, attorneys and politicians.

BY FAR the biggest beneficiaries are the organized crime operations that PROVIDE the product at hefty profit margins (to compensate for the high risk prohibition imposes).

People would be stunned to learn that organized crime (all the way down to the street vendors) are the biggest fans of the Drug War.

-------

PeakTrader said...

Richard, the other "number one beneficiary" is the drug users, who CONSUME the product regardless of the consequences, including murder.

They don't want risk (and responsibility) either.

People would be stunned to learn how much drug users (all the way down to the street addicts) fuel the Drug War.

They don't care, although some may feel guilty.

--------

Richard Rider, Chair, San Diego Tax Fighters said...

Oh come on, Peak Trader -- drug users have to pay 100 times the free market price to acquire their drugs. For them, legalization makes such drugs affordable, and they don't risk jail time for their vice -- nor do they have to resort to crime to pay for their habit.

You can make the case that drug users are the driving force behind the illegal drug market, but they damn sure are not the BENEFICIARIES of the overpriced market.

--------

PeakTrader said...

Richard, they buy drugs and use them. So, they must be "BENEFICIARIES."

I'm sure, drug users would be happy buying cheaper drugs and avoiding jail. And many wouldn't need to feel guilty anymore.

Why not reward them rather than put them on reward posters?