PeakTrader.com

[administrator]

PeakTrader:

Markets in everything:

Did Information-Age firms add to the economy or displace other firms? We know cell phones, which are much more powerful, mostly displaced land lines.

However, generally, new firms in the Information-Age added much more to the economy than they displaced.

I suspect, if illegal drugs became legal, new marijuana firms, heroin firms, cocaine firms, etc. wouldn’t fully displace the breweries, distilleries, wineries, etc.

Instead, they’ll mostly “add” to the economy, and with much more powerful products.

Before the 1960s, illegal drug use was limited to “fringe groups.” However, the country has become wealthier and more socially liberal. Furthermore, the Information-Age also brought us enormous misinformation.

******

Perhaps, some people on drugs will write better songs. However, you’re hallucinating if you believe people high on drugs will improve the economy.

******

If illegal drugs were legal, government will collect taxes, from production and sale.

However, the quantity and quality of work will fall, and crime, including against law-abiding people, will rise.

The country would spend more on drugs, pay more in drug taxes, and spend less on everything else, except social costs.

******

We already know there’s a positive correlation between drug use and unemployment and lost or lower productivity.

And, I’m sure, many people know someone (e.g. an honest person not on drugs), who had their belongings stolen by people on drugs (e.g. their homes broken into, car stolen, or even worse crimes).

---

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/03/markets-in-everything-extra-seats-on-chartered-jets/#comments

---

PeakTrader:

Promoting illegal drugs just creates more problems. The extensive propaganda by the activist pro-drug crowd, to promote unnecessary drug use, particularly among teens, who are most susceptible, has been a disservice for the American people.

******

Society should decide on complete and unbiased information rather than emotional reaction and propaganda.

The evidence is overwhelming. The social costs of illegal drugs, including fatalities and injuries, far exceed the costs of prevention and reduction.

---

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/03/rep-steve-cohen-d-tn-grills-dea-administrator-at-hearing/#comments

---

PeakTrader:

Crime prohibition failed too. So, why don’t we make crime legal?

******

Morganovich, I answered your same question many times before, in many ways, and in detail. It was you who always “slink off.”

******

Morganovich, if you don’t violate the rights of others, you should be able to get as high as you want and have the right to OD too.

However, someone higher than a kite might shove you in a trash compactor, before you OD, and not even know it

******

It’s too bad Americans who obey the law have to pay for Americans who don’t obey the law.

******

It’s like a baby who craps in his diapers. A responsible adult has to clean it up.

******

Jon, I doubt you’d put a diaper on a baby and clean up the mess.

******

It seems, most people collecting welfare live in neighborhoods with lots of liquor stores, and lots of drug dealers.

******

I guess, if you give a 5-year old $100, he’ll buy enough candy to make himself sick.

******

Yet, the 5-year old won’t stop eating candy and learn not to eat enough to get sick. While others OD.

******

No matter how much actual data and unbiased information you show, some people will twist reality, accept biased, and ignorant, information, or just believe the active and extensive pro-drug propaganda.

******

Givemefreedom, you may handle all kinds of drugs well. However, the reality is what I stated before based on the data:

Spending $20 billion a year to prevent and reduce $300 billion a year in social costs, which include lost productivity, traffic & work injuries & fatalities, health problems & drug treatment, mental illness, unemployment, crime, domestic violence, child abuse, and other social services, means we’re not spending enough on the War on Drugs, e.g. rehabilitation.

******

Those are the social costs of illegal drugs, which don’t include alcohol.

---

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/03/americas-longest-war/#comments

---

PeakTrader:

If the goal of drug decriminalization was reducing drug use, it failed, since drug use in Portugal increased. Marijuana is the most decriminalized drug and the most popular.

However, at least you’re not labeled a criminal in Portugal when caught with small quantities. Instead of jail, you get education, rehabilitation, community service, and labeled a “sicko.”

******

Is it overregulation restricting marijuana, because a joint gets you high, but a glass a wine may not, and it grows like a weed?
---

MP:

To be consistent “drugs” should includes “alcohol,” no?

---

PeakTrader:

Is a can of beer or a glass of wine the same as a joint of marijuana or a hit of LSD?

---

MP:

No, you’re right, they’re not the same. Alcohol is much more dangerous and deadly drug than weeds, and is responsible for about 100,000 deaths every year.

---

PeakTrader:

I agree, legal drugs are “much more dangerous and deadly.”

******

One of the social costs of illegal drug use is lost productivity:

The Economics of Drug Legalization – 1995

“Already, drug addicts cost the country roughly $33 billion dollars a year in lost productivity and job-related accidents, according to a study conducted in 1987 by the Research Triangle Institute of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

If legalized, addiction rates would increase and the cost would rise to between $140 billion and $210 billion a year.

And who will pay for lost productivity and job-related accidents? Consumers will, of course, in the final costs of the produced goods.”

My comment: Prices and interest rates would be higher.

******

Morganovich, how do you know watching, or playing, sports, for example, isn’t a net social benefit? Do you have any data to back up your statements?

We spend $20 billion a year total on the War on Drugs. I stated before:

Spending $20 billion a year to prevent and reduce $300 billion a year in social costs, which include lost productivity, traffic & work injuries & fatalities, health problems & drug treatment, mental illness, unemployment, crime, domestic violence, child abuse, and other social services, means we’re not spending enough on the War on Drugs, e.g. rehabilitation.

******

Also, I may add, it would be better for society if the pro-drug crowd watched or played sports rather than spend their time burying actual data with mountains of misinformation.

If Obama got that amount of propaganda, he would be rated the best president since George Washington.

******

Morganovich, I’ve explained all your questions many times before, e.g. the private benefits of drugs. I’ve stated before, it’s like pollution. For every dollar of private benefits, there may be $10 of social costs, which other people pay for, including people who don’t use drugs.

******

Also, the $300 billion (of all social costs) to $20 billion (costs of drug prevention and reduction) is based on 1995 data:

The Economics of Drug Legalization – 1995

“Proponents of legalization suggest that their policy will save society money…First, we will not have to pay police to enforce the present criminal-justice approach to drug usage. Second, we will be able to tax legal drugs, thereby raising revenue.

The FY 1994 federal budget allocates $7.51 billion for drug control (supply reduction) which includes criminal justice, interdiction, international programs and intelligence. State and local governments spend even more, $12.6 billion a year.

The total revenue collected from alcohol taxes at the federal, state, and local levels amounts to about $13.1 billion a year, a paltry sum compared to the social costs associated with alcohol consumption.

We spend approximately $20 billion a year on drug control activities. If drugs were legalized, we would see an increase in addiction rates.

Consequently we would have more crack babies (the kind that already will cost the system $90 billion), decreased productivity (at a cost of between $140 billion and $210 billion), more job-related accidents, and more dead people.

And given the potential black market effect, it is unlikely that we could raise even several billion dollars in tax revenue.

From a purely economic standpoint, legalization is not cost effective.”

******

WhiteHouse.Gov:

“Most people whose only crime is marijuana possession do not go to prison. A survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that 0.7% of all state inmates were behind bars for marijuana possession only (with many of them pleading down from more serious crimes).”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/ondcp-fact-sheets/marijuana-legalization

******

Morganovich says: “what about the costs created by the gangs that illegal drugs create? what about all that crime, violence, and killing?”

The U.S. “crime rate for serious crimes – murder, rape, robbery, assault -” fell to 1963 levels recently:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowest-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

Moreover, only 12,000 Americans OD each year.

---

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/04/the-us-war-on-drugs-is-immoral-and-hopeless/#comments

---

PeakTrader:

On legalization

It’s harder to grow a tomato or a plant than a weed. I wonder if marijuana will compete with corn for ethanol?

Of course, producers will win big, selling a joint that costs one cent to produce for a dollar, marketers will win big, making marijuana as popular as alcohol, government will win big collecting taxes, including from the explosion of drug addicts, etc..

---