Do You Think Drugs Should Be Legalized

This may not seem like the proper forum for this but give me time and you'll see where I'm getting at.

Just watched the Wire. Okay, don't click out the thread yet. I just came across a very interesting thing and it seemed like the public who would be viewing it was subtly beta-tested for something. In the show, the Baltimore Police unofficially experiment with legalizing drugs. They didn't make it legal, but they basically channeled a chaotic system pretty much out of their control. They couldn't stop the river so they wanted to channel it. This brought up all sorts of questions about the legalization of drugs- and not just petty drugs. ALL DRUGS?

1) Does it rub anyone the wrong way that cops would actually enforce these drug-zones?

2) What do you think the long-term prospects of these drug-zones would be? The Good side and the Bad side?

Pretty short, I believe that as soon as something like legal drugs were allowed in this country, those drug-zones are basically the Walmarts- a concentrated mall-like place where one can buy anything they want without consequence. I also think that with the legal making of such zones that this will no longer be a "black-people" thing, but everyone who likes outstanding profits will hop on this thing. They just won't be overt about it. The same traditional taboos would still hold in society about drugs...and you certainly won't get a good job with one. Being an alcoholic isn't a crime, but your still not going to get the job, or you will likely be let go when they do find out. So even with the legalization, their are still controls in place tha could contain this...or not.

What do you think about the legalization of all drugs, partial drugs, or no drugs? Think dispassionately. What are the concrete goods and bads?

 

Drugs generate significant negative externalities. The legalisation case rests on two assumptions. First, we can apply the rational addiction model (such that free choice leads to optimal decisions). Second, we can utilise Pigovian taxes to correct for those negative externalities. Both assumptions are unrealistic

 

Well-worded.

I suppose I should ask how should we channel the problem? Getting rid of it seems equally unrealistic because I am sure it is being supported from significant and, likely, shocking areas of our society. It is a very lucrative business.

It seemed the idea of drug-zones that perhaps ren't legal, but simply regulated by law is the best method. But I suppose I will end my thread here. I think they already have these drug-zones. Basically, ghetto's.

 

If you care about what I'm doing in the privacy of my own home to my own mind and body, then (*)(*)(*)(*) off.

Does that answer your question?

 

Given drug externalities are significantly negative, you're arguing your result is inconsistent with the norm

 

I'm more for decriminalization of most drugs, there are very few drugs that I would support criminilizing and it's for practical reasons. Heroin is one that I don't support I have never liked the idea of the distribution of needles as if you've ever grown up in an area where you've seen them lying around parks you would know that they are dangerous to the public.

As for the war on drugs it's a massive failure and I could see marijuana being legalized in most states in the near future and possibly decriminilization of most drugs as it is probably the best method as it is costing us too much and is overcrowding prisons when we can get actual criminals in.

 

It is at least 10 times easier for a teenager to get drugs than it is for them to get alcohol.

Drug laws are not only ineffective, but they actually make things worse.

 

Look it up. Portugal legalized drugs 10 years ago. Nothing bad happened. The idea that legal drugs create a nation of drug addicts is nonsense. Portugal did not have that problem.

As for externalities, that argument does not fly. According to the former surgeon general C Everett Koop 10x as many people die from cigarettes than from heroin. Do we ban cigarettes? How about natural gas. 400 people a year die from natural gas accidents. Do we ban natural gas?

The ban drugs crowd can't win this argument in the long run.

 

They interfere with supply and demand, an appropriate result on a par with a successfully working Pigovian tax

 

That would be a lie. The notion of zero social costs has been destroyed by the scientific evidence. The best folk have is the red herring "other goods have costs too"

 

Drugs should not be legalised.
I often hear the argument, drug crime would stop if drugs were legal. This is of course, a load of bollocks.

The crime of supplying would stop because it wouldn't be a crime any more but that's where it ends.
The weak minded users would still be unable to keep down a job and drugs would still be out of their financial means so they would still commit all the drug related crime they do now, just that it'll be harder work for the police to stop them.

OK drug pushers, if drugs are so great, why are there rehab facilities?

 

I wouldn't mind if drugs were legalized, but that can't be done in a vacuum. Employers should still be able to drug test and base hiring / firing decisions on drug use. Also, social services like welfare and food stamps shouldn't be open to drug users. There is no compelling reason for the state to subsidize someone laying around getting high all day.

 

If alcohol is so great why do we have Alcoholics anonymous? Ha see we should illegalize alcohol and let's do it by a constitutional amendment. Wait there was one the 18th amendment and it failed dramatically well at least alcohol is much safer than other drugs oh wait a minute it's not.

So it causes problems and isn't safe yet we choose to criminalize other drugs and put people in jail for them but not alcohol.

 

The realities of the black market are far worse for society than dealing with stoned people. I don't like drugs but I like cartels, crime and murder even less. One assumes that society can figure out how to lessen the impact of currenly illegal drugs just like it does alcohol.

 

No - crime associated with prohibition would stop. For example, making marijuana legal would get rid of the gangs' stream of income from that drug, and all the associated crime.

It would not stop the crime we know that is associated with addiction in general: alcohol and tobacco included (especially so).

I use marijuana daily. I go to university and maintain a job. Stop characterizing responsible adults making an informed choice as weak minded and prone to crime.

Because sometimes liberty leads to people making bad decisions. Same with the 1/3rd to half of tobacco users who die as a result.

Absolutely agree. With legalization public (and thus business) perception of responsible drug users will change anyway.

Completely disagree - you can get welfare if you smoke/drink - marijuana is less harmful and certainly less addictive. Next thing you know they'll be taking away welfare for anyone who has an abortion.

I think the solution is to also get rid of welfare - entirely. This is the solution to a lot of issues! Immigration too.

 

We wouldnt be much worse off if most drugs were legalized. Just as drug use, drug prohibition also generates negative extrenalities, from increased crime, opportunities for lawless parts of society, through money and bureaucracy spent on enforcing it to destroying the lives of countless people. Prohibition and failed war on drugs showed this quite clearly. Taken together, this would be more than enough to offset the negative consequences of legal drugs. That is why the trend is to legalize.

 

I'm so sorry your mind is too weak to cope with life.

 

My mind is fine, I just enjoy a little something at the end of the day. It makes TV super interesting, music really good, and sleeping the greatest thing on Earth. What's not to like? I can't see myself going out and committing crime, mostly I just feel like sitting around talking on PF.

The use of marijuana doesn't lead to crime because it makes you a pacifist.

A law degree isn't exactly weak minded. I am and will be a contributing member of society.

 

Black markets will always exist. We just need a price wedge created through a 'tax' price correction for market failure

 

I could agree that the possibility for social destruction exists. China was a good example- literally flooded with opium by Britain's East India Trade Company. But, at the same time, Europe also received opium and didn't fall into such a state. But drug dealers are predators and all businessmen are, in essence, profit-seekers who will improve their business by any means they can get away with. It takes only one ploy like selling free samples to kids to turn the American landscape into a nightmare where even drugs were welcomed into the open market.

I hope I never see that day...when drugs are listed on the stock market.

 

In my view we will never be able to completely eliminate the use of intoxicating substances, once the first humans realized there were plants that made them high we were off and running. Outright bans have a very bad history, so I believe that decriminalizing and managing the way they are distributed would make more sense. Ask any high school kid if it would be easier for them to buy a bottle of whiskey or some pot or other illegal substance. I think in most of the country the pot would be a lot easier to get. The real bottom line for me is that rehab facilities should be available and free for anyone who steps up and asks for help. Other countries manage drug use as a medical problem, an approach that usually has better outcomes.

 

I support the legalization of marijauna because, from my own research, I find it no more dangerous than alcohol, caffeine, or nicotine. For all other recreational drugs, I support decriminalization. Heroin is far too dangerous to be legalized; addicted users are essentially no longer in control of their own lives. There's a good argument, however, that it should be made available by a doctor's prescription. I think the effects of cocaine, LSD, PCP, and Ketemin are far too unpredictable to be legally available, and MDMA has too many immediately dangerous health risks for users.

 

Zero consumption isn't actually required for a prohibition policy to shown to be working. Consider, for example, rational addiction. Here, we only need for the consumer to understand how past, present and future consumption are related. In terms of the economic modelling, that just requires the addition of the 'addictive stock' within the utility function. Prohibition is not necessarily going to significantly reduce consumption from these type of consumers. Whilst price is shown to be important (as shown by elasticity in demand for addictive product), there is also instability in equilibrium (where a minor change in the conditions faced by the consumer can lead to heavy consumption levels). Consumption is therefore highly likely! At the same time, however, prohibition can impact on available choice and therefore reduce the negative consequences of bounded rationality. This could be, for example, be a reduction in the long term damage created through myopia in preferences

 

Why criminalize a product when we have laws that cover the undesired behavior that results from that products abuse? That product can be drugs, alcohol, even guns.

 

Do you know Steady Pie in real life? Or are you always this presumptuous?