| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Isn't hard/damaging drug-use a lot more prevalent in low-income communities though?
I think a case can be made for the human right of imbibing natural drugs, but maybe there needs to be regulation when it comes to synthetic drugs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Isn't hard/damaging drug-use a lot more prevalent in low-income communities though? |
I don't know. That's a pretty vague claim.
Let's say it's true for the sake of argument. Assuming the above is the case, ending prohibition wouldn't necessarily increase the use of hard/damaging drugs. In fact, the evidence we have points to prohibition itself increasing the use of hard/damaging drugs through the newly created incentive to distribute thanks to jacked up black market prices and the newly created demand surrounding any good suddenly made more difficult to obtain, while decriminalization seems to result in either unchanged rates of use or decreased rates of use.
| RufusW wrote: |
| I think a case can be made for the human right of imbibing natural drugs, but maybe there needs to be regulation when it comes to synthetic drugs? |
I'm a proponent of stuff like the American Pure Food and Drug Act mandating that producers/suppliers make their products' contents and purities known to the consumer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Isn't hard/damaging drug-use a lot more prevalent in low-income communities though? |
Yes, but that's true whether it's legal or not. The supply of drugs is all ready here, and people who want to use drugs all ready can. Legalization simply increases government revenue and allows for regulation, which will both make drug users safer, and will allow for more actively education and treatment programs.
| RufusW wrote: |
| I think a case can be made for the human right of imbibing natural drugs, but maybe there needs to be regulation when it comes to synthetic drugs? |
Regulation and illegalization are two different things. Remember, by regulating the composition of drugs, the government can steer drug users towards safer, less addictive legal drugs rather than drugs of more dangerous varieties. You really can't stop people from using drugs, but you can make sure the drugs they end up using are not as harmful, and you can use drug sales to raise funds to help them.
You and I are, I think, both believers that properly instituted social programs and regulations can work. So instead of outright illegalizing these drugs, why not use a more effective tool to solve the problem? Legalize, regulate to steer people towards safer drugs, tax, and use the extra revenue on education and treatment programs. The quality of life of the average addict will increase, total addiction is likely to go down rather than up, and violent crime will decrease as a result of the drug trade shifting into the mainstream economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| You and I are, I think, both believers that properly instituted social programs and regulations can work. |
Let's be clear. As the United Nations INCB established, you're either a prohibitionist or a libertarian. And "libertarian" is implied to be an insult. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| You and I are, I think, both believers that properly instituted social programs and regulations can work. |
Let's be clear. As the United Nations INCB established, you're either a prohibitionist or a libertarian. And "libertarian" is implied to be an insult. |
Let's rebel against their false dichotomy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| You and I are, I think, both believers that properly instituted social programs and regulations can work. |
Let's be clear. As the United Nations INCB established, you're either a prohibitionist or a libertarian. And "libertarian" is implied to be an insult. |
Let's rebel against their false dichotomy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
So, what about legalizing the international sale of heroin into a 'poor' country. Would a company be able to increase consumption of this drug, would an uneducated and poor populace be able to resist this drug and would it hurt a country's development?
(Yes, No, Yes for me) |
Sure. Legalize drugs for Beverly Hills and not Compton too. Prohibition is working so well in the third world areas of the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| You and I are, I think, both believers that properly instituted social programs and regulations can work. |
Let's be clear. As the United Nations INCB established, you're either a prohibitionist or a libertarian. And "libertarian" is implied to be an insult. |
Let's rebel against their false dichotomy. |
| mises wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
So, what about legalizing the international sale of heroin into a 'poor' country. Would a company be able to increase consumption of this drug, would an uneducated and poor populace be able to resist this drug and would it hurt a country's development?
(Yes, No, Yes for me) |
Sure. Legalize drugs for Beverly Hills and not Compton too. Prohibition is working so well in the third world areas of the US. |
I see the pro-drug lobby's bought both of you off.
Well, you may be able to sell that jazz to another pothead, but not to somebody who spends most of his time holding some kid's head while he vomits and wretches on a curbstone at 4 in the morning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ropebreezy
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| I think a case can be made for the human right of imbibing natural drugs, but maybe there needs to be regulation when it comes to synthetic drugs? |
I see no reason why people make a meaningful distinction between natural and synthetic drugs. There are synthetic things that are very beneficial and there are natural things that can kill you. The claim that natural drugs are somehow less dangerous for you is unfounded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think Mises was being sarcastic. But anyway I was just playing devil's advocate, I agree with Fox.
| ropebreezy wrote: |
| I see no reason why people make a meaningful distinction between natural and synthetic drugs. |
If I can grow marijuana in my back yard and consume it myself why-on-earth does someone else have a right to stop me? What about a man-made hugely addictive and hugely damaging drug? It just seems science can now create things that are a lot more dangerous, can more easily change behavior than nature can. I'm sure an argument can be made for unlimited creation and access to anything, but it makes me a little uneasy.
Last edited by RufusW on Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:29 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| I think Mises was being sarcastic. |
Did someone think he wasn't being sarcastic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I couldn't pick up on yours street magic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| What about a man-made hugely addictive and hugely damaging drug? It just seems science can now create things that are a lot more dangerous, can more easily change behavior than nature can. I'm sure an argument can be made for unlimited creation and access to anything, but it makes me a little uneasy. |
An ultimately pointless consideration. The reason society's most dangerous drugs exist is because of the initial decision to ban opium and coca. Had the government not done so, there'd be no street heroin, no street cocaine and crack. Heroin is easier to smuggle than opium because it is more potent. So banning opium, an utterly benign plant, flooded the streets with a potentially deadly narcotic. But so too does injecting heroin result from the higher costs associated with a black market. The higher costs in a black market are passed onto consumers - suppliers turn 100% heroin into 4% heroin, and users inject to achieve the desired effect. If the drug was pure or close to pure, taking it orally would be more than sufficient. Those who wish to continue injecting because they enjoy shooting up could purchase the appropriate, controlled dose. Simply allowing people to purchase coca and opium legally would eliminate more dangerous derivatives from the streets, in any case.
With a substance such as methamphetamine, it is made from mundane, legal products. For this reason and this reason alone, it is folly for law enforcement to pursue those who create it. You may as well just take a billion dollars and burn it. Politicians have no problem burning other people's money. I think we should burn them all at the stake. Except Ron Paul, of course.
When all said and done, those who find themselves mired in addiction are just escaping their miserable lives. Invariably, miserable lives are the result of chronic lack of opportunities for the poor. This, in turn, is due greatly to the government helping itself to the pickings of the best and the brightest and wasting it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Prohibition of alcohol failed. Why expect the prohibition of narcotics to be any different? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Uh oh. Looks like some drug cartels Hate America for her Freedoms:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11eba30c-2fbb-11df-9153-00144feabdc0.html
| Quote: |
| Three people with links to the US consulate in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Ju�rez were gunned down at the weekend by �drug cartel hit teams�, according to a US official. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
