PeakTrader.com

[administrator]

PeakTrader said...

I suspect, Americans on welfare and in college are more likely to use illegal drugs, while some jobs require drug screening, e.g. random drug tests:

Rates of Illicit Drug Abuse in the U.S.
Marijuana Remains Most Widely Use Illegal Drug
October 30, 2010

NSDUH findings:

•Of unemployed adults, 18.5 are illicit drug users.
•Only 8.8 percent of full time employees are drug users.
•9.4 percent of part-time employees are drug users.

******

Illegal drug use up in a recession year (2009):

Illegal Drug Use Up Sharply Last Year
09/16/10

"The rate of illegal drug use rose last year to the highest level in nearly a decade, fueled by a sharp increase in marijuana use and a surge in ecstasy and methamphetamine abuse.

Gil Kerlikowske, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, called the 9 percent increase in drug use disappointing but said he was not surprised given "eroding attitudes" about the perception of harm from illegal drugs and the growing number of states approving medicinal marijuana."

******

Ron, it seems, there's a positive correlation between recreational drug use and leisure time (or less labor time).

Here's what the Office of National Drug Control Policy says:

"Drug users are less dependable than other workers and decrease workplace productivity.

They are more likely to have taken an unexcused absence in the past month; 12.1 percent did so compared to 6.1 percent of drug-free workers.

Illegal drug users get fired more frequently (4.6 percent were terminated within the past year compared to 1.4 percent of non-users).

Drug users also switch jobs more frequently; 32.1 percent worked for three or more employers in the past year, compared to 17.9 percent of non-drug-using workers.

One-quarter of drug users left a job voluntarily in the past year.

This high turnover increases training and other productivity-related costs to American businesses."

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/policy/99ndcs/ii-b.html

******

How did Americans survive without illegal drugs before 1960?

DEA History Book, 1970 - 1975

"Prior to the 1960s, Americans did not see drug use as acceptable behavior, nor did they believe that drug use was an inevitable fact of life. Indeed, tolerance of drug use resulted in terrible increases in crime between the 1960s and the early 1990s, and the landscape of America has been altered forever.

By the early 1970s, drug use had not yet reached its all-time peak, but the problem was sufficiently serious to warrant a serious response. Consequently, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was created in 1973 to deal with America's growing drug problem."

******

According to the data, U.S. per capita alcohol consumption rose somewhat steadily after Prohibition (1919-33) and peaked in 1981, a few years after illegal drug use peaked.

Interestingly, in the years after Prohibition, U.S. per capita alcohol consumption was low, until WWII.

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Resources/DatabaseResources/QuickFacts/AlcoholSales/Pages/consum01.aspx

******

Larry, I've shown data before that the U.S. is much better at catching criminals than other developed countries. So, of course, more Americans are in jail.

However, the U.S. needs to spend more on rehabilitation, like Japan:

Fighting Drugs in Four Countries: Lessons for America?
September 24, 1990

"The Japanese in 1954...inaugurated a system of forced hospitalization for chronic drug users. Under this policy, drug users were rounded up in droves, forced to go through cold-turkey withdrawal and placed in work camps for periods ranging from a few months to several years.

This approach to drug users, still in force today, is seen by the Japanese as a humane policy focussed primarily on rehabilitation. By American standards, however, these rehabilitation programs would be seen as very tough.

The Japanese from the very beginning have opted for a cold-turkey drug withdrawal. Thus, every heroin addict identified in Japan is required to enter a hospital or treatment facility, where they go immediately through withdrawal.

Conviction through the criminal justice system is not necessary for commitment. Any addict identified, either through examination by physicians or through urine testing, is committed through an administrative process.

As a result courts are not burdened with heavy caseloads of drug users, drug users are not saddled with criminal records and punishment for drug users is swift and sure.

These policies dramatically and rapidly cut drug use. Within four years of the 1954 amendments, the number of people arrested for violating the Stimulant Control Law dropped from 55,654 to only 271in 1958.

Japan began experiencing serious problems with heroin. By 1961 it is estimated that there were over 40,000 heroin addicts in Japan...tougher penalties against importation and selling, and by imposing a mandatory rehabilitation regime for addicts.

The results of Japan's tough heroin program mirrored those of its successful fight against stimulants. The number of arrests for heroin sale and possession fell from a high in 1962 of 2,139 to only 33 in 1966 and have never risen above 100 since."

******

Sweden’s unsolved violent crime rate at 95 percent
15 November 2008

"Robberies and violent crimes made up 75 percent of all reported crimes in Sweden last year, which added up to around 900,000. Police managed to solve 5.8 percent of them.

Bengt Svenson, the national police chief, defended his department saying: “There is often very little of value to work with. When it comes to theft, there are no witnesses, and victims often don’t know when the crime occurred. There’s really not much to go on and that obviously makes it hard to solve crimes.”

Justice Minister Beatrice Ask feels the figures are an unwelcome truth for a government that ran on a platform on crime reduction. When elected, the government promised to have 20,000 police on Sweden’s streets by 2010.

Ask feels that part of the problem lies with Sweden’s culture. “I think it has to do with the culture, the idea that there is simply nothing that can be done.” At any rate, Ask says she feels the statistics are rather disturbing and that the Swedish police could do more to clear up these cases."

******

I think, the drug lord is making a pathetic attempt to prove how "macho" he is against those who killed or captured so many of his comrades, and made his life so miserable.

******

American College of Pediatricians, June 2010
Marijuana Use: Legalization Not a Good Idea

"The negative physical and mental effects of marijuana use are well documented. It’s associated with lower educational accomplishment, lower work productivity, increased risks of motor vehicle accidents, and heart and lung disease. All forms of cannabis are mind-altering drugs due to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active chemical in marijuana. THC affects nerve cells in the region of the brain where memories are formed. This makes it difficult for the user to recall recent events. Chronic exposure to THC may hasten the age related loss of nerve cells. Marijuana impairs a person’s judgment, coordination, balance, ability to pay attention and reaction time. Cannabis use in adolescence is a predictor of depression in later life. Cannabis induces psychotic symptoms and cognitive impairment in some individuals. Numerous mechanisms have been postulated for the link between cannabis use and attention deficits, psychotic symptoms, and neural desynchronization. Studies indicate that it impairs driving performance in the same way alcohol does, with users displaying the same lack of coordination on standard sobriety tests. Marijuana is second only to alcohol as a factor contributing to traffic accidents involving loss of life. Students who regularly use marijuana have lower grade and test scores and are less likely to achieve personal goals. Marijuana smokers often jeopardize their future by engaging in risky sexual practices or committing criminal acts."

******

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Marijuana: A Continuing Concern for Pediatricians

"The abuse of marijuana by adolescents is a major health problem with social, academic, developmental, and legal ramifications. Marijuana is an addictive, mind-altering drug capable of inducing dependency.

There is little doubt that marijuana intoxication contributes substantially to accidental deaths and injuries among adolescents, especially those associated with motor vehicle crashes, and is frequently involved in incidents related to driving while intoxicated.

Adolescents who use marijuana are 104 times as likely to use cocaine compared with peers who never smoked marijuana."

******

The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse in the United States

"The economic cost of drug abuse in 2002 was estimated at $180.9 billion...This report was developed for The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)...does not address costs related to abuse of or dependence on legal substances that may be termed drugs including alcohol and tobacco."

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/economic_costs.pdf

******

Ondra, one piece of a puzzle doesn't show the true picture.

What's your point?

Illegal drug users either don't care or are ignorant of the damage they create in society.

I guess, that's what drug abuse does to people. They can't help themselves.

DEA - Fact 6:

"Legalization proponents claim, absurdly, that making illegal drugs legal would not cause more of these substances to be consumed, nor would addiction increase.

They claim that many people can use drugs in moderation and that many would choose not to use drugs, just as many abstain from alcohol and tobacco now.

Yet how much misery can already be attributed to alcoholism and smoking?

Is the answer to just add more misery and addiction?

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."

******

One way to measure this is [the summation of positive effects to individuals minus the summation of negative effects to individuals] minus [the positive effects to others minus the negative effects to others, or the devastation to society].

******

Sprewell says: "Do that math and anyone who seriously looks at the numbers comes to the conclusion that legalization is the only way to go."

Do you have a clue what is the math?

Correlation or causation? Yes, it could all just be a coincidence.

******

It's possible, if the U.S. spends an additional $1 billion on the war on drugs, U.S. social costs may be reduced by much more than $1 billion.

******

Ron, there are many factors that influence illegal drug use.

How do we know illegal drug use wouldn't be higher without drug enforcement?

The data above suggest Prohibition reduced per capita alcohol consumption dramatically.

******

Ron, how do you know it's not working, and how do you define victory?

U.S. marijuana use was in decline, until decriminalization.

Of course, it could be just a coincidence.

******

Rich countries may have a higher prevalence of illegal drug use. However, there are many factors. The U.S. is not Portugal.

******

Morganovich says: "if you make drug laws stricter, fewer people will admit to using them when you ask."

Then why was per capita alcohol consumption so low between the end of Prohibition and WWII compared to before Prohibition?

You don't see the implication that per capita alcohol consumption fell dramatically during Prohibition?

Or do you want to keep pounding round pegs into square holes to prove you're right and the pegs and holes are wrong?

******

If, for example, society eliminated speed limits, some people will drive just as well at 90 MPH than at 70 MPH.

However, is there any doubt overall deaths and injuries will increase, to the people driving and to others.

******

Some people are really good at driving down one-way streets. However, can we give permits to those individuals fairly?

I think, it has to be illegal, and at least a ticket is necessary to see a judge, who may make the determination fairly.

--------

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=652092220435885179

---------

PeakTrader said...

MF: "The case for prohibiting drugs is exactly as strong and as weak as the case for prohibiting people from overeating."

Are the social costs of drugs equal to the social costs of overeating?

And what about the social benefits, including a free high from marijuana second hand smoke?

******

Also, how many people OD from overeating or kill other people because they're too fat?

******

The U.S. has an obesity problem. So, there should be a drug problem too?

******

Abir, so, it's OK when people OD from drugs, as long as they don't harm other people, right?

******

Abir, that sounds like a contradiction. It's not OK, but it is, as long as the government isn't involved.

What about those annoying speed limits imposed by government? Can you say the same thing:

"I don't think it's OK for people to drive 100 MPH and die. But when you drive 100 MPH, you do so fully knowing the risks. It is not the government's job to prevent you from indulging in risky behaviour."

******

Abir says "I am not OK with people indulging in risky behavior that can cause death. However, it is not the government's job to prevent such actions."

Whose job is it? The person "indulging in risky behavior that can cause death?"

Also, government has to scrape you off the pavement when you kill yourself.

******

Juandos, yes, fat people are potentially dangerous to some, and yes, government doesn't necessarily have to clean up "road kill."

The war on drugs, like the war on tobacco, may have prevented millions of drug addicts.

And what about MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving):

"The death rate from alcohol-related traffic accidents has declined since the 1980s. According to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, alcohol related deaths per year have declined from 26,173 in 1982 to 16,885 in 2005."

******

Abir, if people like you didn't promote drugs, resources wouldn't be wasted to contain them:

DEA History Book, 1970 - 1975

"Prior to the 1960s, Americans did not see drug use as acceptable behavior, nor did they believe that drug use was an inevitable fact of life. Indeed, tolerance of drug use resulted in terrible increases in crime between the 1960s and the early 1990s, and the landscape of America has been altered forever.

By the early 1970s, drug use had not yet reached its all-time peak, but the problem was sufficiently serious to warrant a serious response. Consequently, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was created in 1973 to deal with America's growing drug problem."

******

Abir, it's naive, and dishonest based on your value judgement, to believe there's no difference between 10 million or 100 million "potheads."

******

Methinks, marijuana is the only illegal drug that had increased usage in recent years, because of decriminalization.

Also:

"The consequences of legalization became evident when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that the state could not interfere with an adult’s possession of marijuana for personal consumption in the home. The court’s ruling became a green light for marijuana use. Although the ruling was limited to persons 19 and over, teens were among those increasingly using marijuana. According to a 1988 University of Alaska study, the state’s 12 to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group. Alaska’s residents voted in 1990 to recriminalize possession of marijuana, demonstrating their belief that increased use was too high a price to pay."

Moreover:

"By 1979, after 11 states decriminalized marijuana and the Carter administration had considered federal decriminalization, marijuana use shot up among teenagers. That year, almost 51 percent of 12th graders reported they used marijuana in the last 12 months. By 1992, with tougher laws and increased attention to the risks of drug abuse, that figure had been reduced to 22 percent, a 57 percent decline."

******

Abir says "Why should I pay for saving their lives?"

It's possible, if the U.S. spends an additional $1 billion on the war on drugs, U.S. social costs may be reduced by much more than $1 billion.

******

Abir, the social costs of drug abuse retard living standards.

Social costs include lost productivity, traffic & work accidents, health problems & drug treatment, mental illness, unemployment, crime, domestic violence, child abuse, and other social services.

---------

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=60483664123041246

-------

PeakTrader said...

There will always be a "lunatic fringe."

Obviously, the War on Drugs hasn't done enough to minimize crackpots (no pun intended).

-------

PFCT said...

Sorry professor and your readers who agree but you obviously don't have kids because if you did, you would not support legalizing drugs

--------

PeakTrader said...

PFCT, don't you know many people high on drugs believe they drive better at 100 MPH than 65 MPH, particularly with kids in the car?

--------

PeakTrader said...

Morganovich says: "If you took every child harmed by a driver on drugs since ww2, it would likely be fewer than are harmed every year by drunk drivers."

You make an excellent case that the War on Drugs has been effective.

So, why legalize drugs like alcohol?

******

VangelV says: "I don't see many potheads getting in car accidents because they were impaired and drove too fast."

Maybe they're in prison getting in work accidents.

******

When you decriminalize something, you get more of it:

National survey shows a rise in illicit drug use from 2008 to 2010
SAMHSA
9/8/2011

"Emerging research reveals potential links between state laws permitting access to smoked medical marijuana and higher rates of marijuana use," said Gil Kerlikowske, Director of National Drug Control Policy.

In 2010, 17.4 million Americans were current users of marijuana - compared to 14.4 million in 2007.

SAMHSA Administrator Pamela S. Hyde: "...we must do everything we can to effectively promote prevention, treatment and recovery programs across our country."

******

Methinks, when people consume illegal drugs, they commit or contribute to crimes, including murders, and cost society billions of dollars.

They're causing the problems, not "an evil state."

******

Methinks, you're the one who has been brainwashed into BS.

People who don't use illegal drugs aren't the problem.

The government responded to a growing drug problem in the '70s, and has likely prevented millions of drug users.

******

It's foolish to assume the costs of drug legalization will be limited to private costs.

Legalization will most likely increase drug use, which will not only increase private costs, but may result in a net increase of external costs, i.e. on those who don't use drugs.

If drug users can afford their private costs and external costs were small, I'd be for drug legalization.

******

Perhaps, instead of putting people in jail for illegal drug use, we could impose hefty fines based on income to finance what SAMHSA Administrator Pamela S. Hyde said:

"...we must do everything we can to effectively promote prevention, treatment and recovery programs across our country."

---------

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=5212711987097480402

--------

PeakTrader said...

How about all the illegal drug users in the U.S. stop for a year to weaken the drug cartels. So, law enforcement can much more easily capture or kill the criminals.

It's shameful innocent people suffer, just because of ignorant, inconsiderate, or irresponsible drug users.

Of course, it's easier for drug users to just shift blame.

******

I guess, some people believe individuals should choose which laws to obey, regardless of the consequences or costs to other people, as long as they're satisfied.

Afterall, that's what's important.

-------

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=5951026211613860827

-------

PeakTrader said...

We should thank the brave efforts of law enforcement, including putting more criminals in jail through the War on Drugs, which also reversed the trend of rising drug use:

US crime rate at lowest point in decades.
January 9, 2012

The last time the crime rate for serious crime – murder, rape, robbery, assault – fell to these levels, gasoline cost 29 cents a gallon and the average income for a working American was $5,807. That was 1963.

In the past 20 years, for instance, the murder rate in the United States has dropped by almost half...Meanwhile, robberies were down 10 percent in 2010 from the year before and 8 percent in 2009.

The declines are not just a blip, say criminologists. Rather, they are the result of a host of changes that have fundamentally reversed the high-crime trends of the 1980s.

James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston. "We are indeed a safer nation than 20 years ago."

He and others give four main reasons for the decline:

*Increased incarceration, including longer sentences, that keeps more criminals off the streets.

*Improved law enforcement strategies, including advances in computer analysis and innovative technology.

*The waning of the crack cocaine epidemic that soared from 1984 to 1990, which made cocaine cheaply available in cities across the US.

*The graying of America characterized by the fastest-growing segment of the US population – baby boomers – passing the age of 50.

******

I wonder how many of the 55,000 people in Mexico were killed by illegal drug users in California? 10,000?

******

The Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) of 1984

At least three observations about the SRA appear pertinent.

First, the Act was well considered over a period of years, with its final passage in 1984 culminating a decade of hearings, committee mark-ups, and floor consideration.

Second, it enjoyed strong bipartisan support, especially in the Senate where its final passage was endorsed by all but Senator Mathias.

Third...the enacted version represents a unicameral blueprint shaped almost entirely by the Senate. The Senate-passed bill subsequently was passed by the House without amendment.

******

"Hempcon is currently scheduled to make multiple stops throughout California in 2012, and we are constantly investigating new markets and demand for our show has reached far beyond the southwest."

California now has marijuana conventions and with any luck the next generation will be known as Generation PH (Pot Head).

******

Al, Prohibition was about making a very popular legal drug illegal.

We're on our way to making marijuana much more popular and perhaps legal.

I guess, you want to go back to the 1960s and 1970s when drugs and crime were soaring to repeat history.

People like you need to stop reacting emotionally and look at all the facts.

Then you'll understand the benefits to society outweigh the costs.

We need to spend more on the War on Drugs, particularly on prevention and rehabilitation.

Every additional dollar will save much more than one dollar in social costs.

We're heading in the wrong direction decriminalizing and promoting marijuana, particularly for young Americans.

******

Jon, I stated before:

Social costs include lost productivity, traffic & work accidents, health problems & drug treatment, mental illness, unemployment, crime, domestic violence, child abuse, and other social services.

******

Morganovich and Al, you two seem to agree if Twinkies were illegal, it's ok to break the law and eat them.

You have a right to break the law and the police have a right to arrest you. So, what's the problem?

You seem to support the drug culture, who entices young people through propaganda and gets them high to vote for legalization (which I think is despicable).

That's how Obama was elected, and you want to make the same mistake.

******

Jon Murphy said...

"Social costs include lost productivity, traffic & work accidents, health problems & drug treatment, mental illness, unemployment, crime, domestic violence, child abuse, and other social services."

I understand and agree with all that. But alcohol has the exact same issues. Should alcohol be banned?

--------

PeakTrader said...

Jon, alcohol is already legal. Should we legalize all drugs just for the hell of it?

---------

Jon Murphy said...

If the reason why pot being illegal is what you listed, should alcohol be illegal, too? If not, why?

--------

Jon, should we promote alcohol with lots of propaganda and turn young people to alcohol and into alcoholics?

Why not just legalize all drugs?

******

So, you don't view promoting alcohol as a problem?

If promoting alcohol is not a problem, then why not promote all drugs?

******

Jon, I answered your question.

If the social costs are the same, neither should be promoted.

One happens to be legal and the other happens to be illegal.

That's just the reality of it.

******

A step in promoting pot is legalizing it.

******

If drug users can afford their private costs and external costs were small, I'd be for drug legalization.

******

Mark J. Perry said...

"Social costs include lost productivity, traffic & work accidents, health problems & drug treatment, mental illness, unemployment, crime, domestic violence, child abuse, and other social services."

That's alcohol, right?

"If drug users can afford their private costs and external costs were small, I'd be for drug legalization."

Alcohol is one of those drugs, no?

-------

PeakTrader said...

Yes, two wrongs don't make a right

Or, being half wrong is better than being all wrong

Also, a little wine has some health benefits?

I don't know about a little marijuana?

---------

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=5202645778837349390

---------

PeakTrader said...

High crime neigborhoods already have liquor stores on almost every other block. So, how will legalizing drugs improve those neighborhoods?

I suspect, just the additional costs of social services will exceed the additional taxes.

******

Morganovich says: "The WoD fostered the growth of the gangsta culture."

How do you know that? It could've slowed or impeded it instead.

******

There seems to be at least three major differences between Prohibition and the War on Drugs:

1. The government didn't effectively enforce Prohibition.

2. Government officials, including police, were also making money on Prohibition.

3. Much of the Sicilian Mafia fled to the U.S. after Mussolini cracked down on them in the 1920s.

******

Matticus Rex, sure, without the War on Drugs, they would've been angels instead.

******

The War on Drugs has been an effective "tool" in capturing criminals of much worse crimes.

That's one reason major crime rates have fallen sharply.

Also, there's a difference between police taking from criminals and criminals paying police.

******

And what's wrong with government seizing assets? If drugs were legal, they would've paid taxes anyway.

******

Morganovich, without the War on Drugs, there may be a hundred times more drug users and a hundred times more "gangsta...flaunting drug money," along with much fewer of them flaunting their new prison uniforms.

Moreover, the police know the difference between a seller with a ton of marijuana and a long criminal record and someone with only a bit of marijuana and no criminal record.

You've been watching too many "Untouchables" episodes to believe the government effectively enforce Prohibition.

Or, without the War on Drugs, there may be twice as many drug users today and twice as much drug money.

It seems, the War on Drugs not only reversed the rise in drug use, it reversed the rise in major crimes.

-------

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=6318804268900610023

-------

"Like Any War, Drug Prohibition Kills"

-------

PeakTrader said...

An epidemic also kills. We've seen how decriminalization of marijuana led to a sharp increase in marijuana use.

Examining the Impact of Marijuana Legalization on Marijuana Consumption
Insights from the Economics Literature

"From this review it is clear that total consumption will rise in response to legalization due to increases in the number of new users, increases in the number of regular and heavy users, and probable increases in the duration in which marijuana is consumed for average users."

******

Jon, just the decriminalization of marijuana increased the costs substantially.

Moreover, there are hidden costs, including for high school and college students:

Marijuana Use Can Threaten Teen's Academic Success
Mar 15 2007

Some factions of society still try to perpetrate the myth that marijuana is nothing nore than a harmless and misunderstood drug no more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes.

The bottom line is that marijuana and other illegal drugs have real and proven negative effects on teen academic performance.

Marijuana and underage drinking are linked to higher dropout rates. Students who drink or use drugs frequently are up to five times more likely than their peers to drop out of high school. A teenage marijuana user's odds of dropping out are more than twice that of a non-user.

"In fact, studies show that heavy marijuana use impairs a teen's ability to concentrate and retain information. And this is especially problematic during these peak learning and testing years" said Larry S. Fields, M.D., F.A.A.F.P. and President of the American Academy of Family Physicians."

******

Illegal Drug Use on the Rise in U.S.
Sept. 8, 2011

The use of illicit drugs and the nonmedical use of prescription medications is increasing, and this is largely driven by an increased rate of marijuana use, a survey shows.

There were also some glimmers of hope seen in the new survey.

Rates of nonmedical use of prescription drugs, hallucinogens, and inhalants are around the same as in 2009.

The number of current methamphetamine users decreased by roughly half from 2006 to 2010.

Cocaine use also declined, from 2.4 million current users in 2006 to 1.5 million in 2010.

Fewer 12- to 17-year-olds drank alcohol and used tobacco.

"We really need to figure out this marijuana problem and understand how to help people not use and/or delay starting to use marijuana."

Stratyner is concerned that medical marijuana or the legal use of marijuana to treat certain medical or pain-related conditions may further fuel increases in the use of marijuana -- especially among young people.

"The message we are sending to youth is that medicalized marijuana is safe." (says Harris Stratyner, PhD, the clinical regional vice president of Caron Treatment Centers).

******

Legalization Won’t Kill the Cartels
New York Times
June 18, 2011

"For a growing number of American policy makers, politicians and activists, the best answer to the spiraling violence in Mexico is to legalize the marijuana that, they argue, fuels the country’s vicious cartels and smugglers.

Legalization would move that trade into the open market, driving down the price...there’s no reason the cartels couldn’t enter the legal market for the sale of marijuana, as organized crime groups did in the United States after the repeal of Prohibition.

Marijuana makes up 60 percent of the cartels’ profits, that still leaves another 40 percent, which includes the sale of methamphetamine, cocaine, and brown-powder and black-tar heroin.

Cartels derive a growing slice of their income from other illegal activities. Some experts on organized crime in Latin America, like Edgardo Buscaglia, say that cartels earn just half their income from drugs.

Indeed, in recent years cartels have used an extensive portfolio of rackets and scams to diversify their income.

For example, they use kidnap rivals, informants and incompetent subordinates to punish, exact revenge or send a message.

Now that they have seen that people are willing to pay heavy ransoms, kidnapping has become their second-most-lucrative venture, with the targets ranging from businessmen to migrants.

Another new source of cartel revenue is oil theft, long a problem for the Mexican government. The national oil company, Pemex, loses hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of petroleum every year to bandits and criminal gangs who tap into pipelines and siphon it off.

Cartels are also moving into the market in pirated goods in Latin America. The market used to be dominated by terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Cartels are also moving into extortion. A cartel representative will approach the owner of a business — whether a pharmacy or a taco stand — demanding a monthly stipend for “protection.” If those payments aren’t made on time, the business is often burned to the ground, or the owner is threatened, kidnapped or killed.

A popular cartel racket involves branded products. For example, a cartel member will tell a music-store owner that he has to sell CDs with the Zetas logo stamped on them, with the cartel taking a 25 percent cut of the profits. Noncompliance isn’t an option."

******

Jon, the social costs of illegal drugs are many times higher than the costs of enforcing illegal drug laws.

It's like pollution. It makes economic sense to spend $1 to reduce and prevent $5 of pollution.

Also, I may add, there are private benefits and private costs. However, drug addicts face rising private costs, over time, just to maintain private benefits.

You're not aware of the total social costs caused by the behavior of illegal drug users.

******

Morganovich, the U.S. is not Portugal. It's more like California.

Also, social costs include lost productivity, traffic & work accidents, health problems & drug treatment, mental illness, unemployment, crime, domestic violence, child abuse, and other social services.

******

Ken, DEA History Book, 1970 - 1975

"Prior to the 1960s, Americans did not see drug use as acceptable behavior, nor did they believe that drug use was an inevitable fact of life. Indeed, tolerance of drug use resulted in terrible increases in crime between the 1960s and the early 1990s, and the landscape of America has been altered forever.

By the early 1970s, drug use had not yet reached its all-time peak, but the problem was sufficiently serious to warrant a serious response. Consequently, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was created in 1973 to deal with America's growing drug problem."

******

Morganovich, why don't you and those very active drug propagandists take it to the Supreme Court?

-------

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=4803220249326799202

-------