Do You Think Drugs Should Be Legalized

I will continue to refer to economic rationality. It would be irrational to do otherwise

 

The tax on cigarettes more than makes up the increased medical costs - except the tax dollars don't reimburse those costs....

The tax on gasoline doesn't go to road maintenance, let alone improvement.....

Do we really expect the government to offset negative externalities? ROTFL
I see the government becoming a negative externality, in their own right.

 

I'm a hardcore conservative... and yes some drugs should be legalized. Pot at the VERY least. It is indisputable that pot should be legalized.

 

Smokers actually cost the healthcare system less... contrary to popular belief.

 

If they just die.

Do you have any numbers to support they just die, and don't end up in 2 years of chemo and radiation that costs 100,000's of dollars?

Cancer is big business!

 

The last 5 years of ones life cost more than ones rest of life... usually.

Honestly, I will get back to you with some numbers later. Too lazy right now, won't lie.

 

It doessnt have to. Earmarking may be seen as desirable in equity terms, but for efficiency criteria to be met we only need to see a change in price. Fuel tax is one of the few examples where pigovian tax solutions are easily implemented

 

Pretty good vocabulary for one with severe cognitive impairment.
Did your mommy or preacher tell you that ? Let's look at a test case instead of parroting your masters repeat brainwashing techniques.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

 

Its called the tecno babble shill technique.

Its meant to overwhelm his opponents by muddy'ing his argument in unnecessary language.

 

Through the right set of incentives, sure (taxation isn't the only avenue, just a simple and easily enforced one). It worked for paper mills along the Ohio river and a huge amount of revenues generated from taxes on alcohol and cigs goes to health care. Is the tax off setting the externalities 1:1? No, but does that actually matter? Also no, it's about deterrence and compensation.

Seeing as how their endogenous to the system itself, that wouldn't even be in the realm of possibility and more importantly it doesn't make any sense.

I'm not necessarily against the legalization or decriminalization of drugs but I do want to be clear that doing so isn't the economic and social boon that some of the folks in threads like these want to paint it as. Whether the reduced costs of incarceration and enforcement would offset the costs generated through increased usage is an empirical question that I don't know the answer to.

 

Its called 'knowledge'. Some folk find the whole idea just a little worrying. Note of course that no one has been able to counter anything that I've said. Indeed, I offered the main coherent argument that can be used to defend legalisation: the rational addiction model and possible price effects.

And the use of case studies? Happy to consider anything done with academic integrity. You'll of course find that the qualitative information offers confused messages (e.g. The analysis into decriminisation and psychosis effects). It certainly cannot be used to reject the quantitative analysis into negative externalities)

 

You've done nothing but spout unnecessarily technical terms to muddy the waters, and give the appearance of authority!

 

It depends on the drug and how harmful or addictive it is.

 

Nope, I've referred directly to the economic analysis used to understand addictive product consumption. It would be cretinous to ignore such analysis

 

You mean like it was cretinous to ignore this post?

 

As far as I'm concerned, no victim, no crime.

 

This is an argument that Conservatives can never win. Unless they demand the the US bans alcohol and cigarettes then there argument does not hold water.

Here are some of the arguments:

1.) Drugs kill people. The externality argument. Right. Ever heard of drunken driving? Why is alcohol legal.

2.) Drugs is a poison, we need to ban it. So are cigarettes. Why is that legal.

3.) Drugs destroy families. And alcohol doesn't? How many have been destroyed by a drunken father.

4.) If drugs are legal, everyone will use it. Not true. Portugal legalized drugs 10 yrs ago and there was no runaway drug use.

Every argument there is against drugs can be applied to alcohol and cigarettes. Yet alcohol and cigarettes are legal.

 

You perhaps could benefit from an upskiiling in your reading potential. I've already referred to the red herring used by pro-legalisers, whereby they inappropriately assume prohibition must mean support for current policy. One should note that Becker, the primary figure into the rational addiction model, also derived an understanding of optimal deterrence. Its deriving that deterrence which allows for the correction for our selfish behaviour and the coercion it generates

 

If legalization occurs, what type of Pigovian tax system would you pursue? I am no expert, nor am I well-versed on this matter, so you may need to make references to specific studies or persons.

 

So you haven't been able to get it right in over 100 years of prohibition of drugs, and in fact things have gotten worse with the externalities of the prison industrial complex.

Where is your tangible evidence, or do you have nothing but theory on your side?

I mean there are still people who swear communism is a good idea, and can quote very smart people, but where is the evidence that communism can succeed.

Of course this is a metaphor, and the real question I am asking is where is your evidence that prohibition of drugs can exist without causing more harm then the drug use itself?

 

I haven't? Golly gosh, you must think I'm jolly old and terribly powerful. Clearly there is a tendency for 'some' governments to utilise inefficient criminal justice systems. The use of the death penalty, for example, is arguably inconsistent with optimal deterrence criteria (given the marginal costs associated with multiple murder falls to zero).

Empirical evidence supports the theoretical hypothesis, from the impact of myopic consumption to the multiple costs effects. As I said earlier, whilst there is debate over specific issues (e.g. Magnitude of psychosis effects), there is agreement that legalisation will lead to overconsumption. The issue is whether tax solutions are viable. The black market in the tobaccvo trade suggests not.

There are more people who, allowing emotionalism replace objectivity, rant about communism and make idiotic claim inconsistent with political economic reality.

The variation in policies across time and location automatically destroys your binary argument

 

This is all I was looking for.

 

Directed primarily to Reiver, but open to anyone.

How does "decriminalization" fit into an academic's world? The Netherlands has skated around the issue for years (although this will apparently change in 2013). Decriminalization essentially means drugs are illegal but we don't really care about your business. You can use drugs here. However, if you flunk a drug test in your country of citizenship, stating that you used the drug elsewhere is not a valid defense to keep your job as the drug is technically "illegal". The USA might benefit a lot from this "lawyer style" wording that would keep a lot of nonviolent people out of prison.

 

It would be accurate to say that most economists are in favour of that option. This goes back to the belief in a mixture of user types: whilst irrational consumption is predicted (particularly impacting on the young who find it difficult to ensure decision-making is not warped by inconsistent preferences), rational addiction is a significant feature. This ensures a role for the market, as long as some form of regulatory framework is used. My stance is that such a regulatory framework is extremely difficult to engineer (if effectiveness is desired). It is more straight forward to apply. I'm in favour of a prison system for profiteerers, with fines used for users. This ensures internalising of externalities whilst also avoiding some of the problems created by irrationality in use.