"Rush" Limbaugh and the Cocaine Price Support Program

email | Bill Walker

[Sir Gawain]

"Rush" Limbaugh and the Cocaine Price Support Program

The High Cost of Drug Prohibition

by Bill Walker

Rush Limbaugh has been exposed for routinely breaking US drug laws. We are told that this is "news". Apparently the 1.2 million US citizens arrested for drug "offenses" so far this year were not "news". Be that as it may, Rush's hypocrisy gives a good opportunity to review the US drug price support programs.

Some Price Supports Are More Equal Than Others

The US Department of Agriculture is spending about 74 billion dollars in FY 2003: here. Most of this money goes to the various direct and indirect price support programs that raise the cost of food. A few billion goes to various money-losing deforestation projects on public lands that raise the cost of plywood. The good thing about these price supports is that they are only applied at the level of the 'pushers' of crops or lumber. Farmers may go to prison for growing "too much" food, but users are not arrested for possession of peaches or white pine 2-by-4s. Why not? There is no logical answer; in time, food and/or plywood addicts may fill the prisons as well. This should concern anyone who may become addicted to using food or forest products. To understand how peaceful commodity purchases can become felonies, we have to understand how Rush Limbaugh's bloodstream became government property.

History of the Cocaine Price Support Program

The Cocaine Price Support Program (which today includes thousands of other commodities as well, such as Rush's Oxycontin, diamorphine, THC, testosterone, etc.; the program is sometimes referred to as the "Drug War", "Drug Prohibition", or "DARE") dwarfs all other price support programs. The Drug War is not contained within a single government department. The Drug War is not even contained within one government or group of governments, but is an integral part of them all. There are many urban legends claiming that one government or another (e.g., Holland) does not participate in the Drug War. Academic research has shown these rumors to be false.[1] The Drug War extends throughout the Solar System and beyond.

Drug price supports have a very short history, as government functions go. There were no US price supports for drugs of any kind until the Harrison Act (passed December 17 1914, took effect April 1915). The Harrison Act specifically reserved the rights of physicians to prescribe opiates. Within months this had been "interpreted" to mean the right to imprison physicians for prescribing opiates. The courts allowed this bizarre progression down into legal Wonderland, and the Federal government had its precedent. The bloodstream of all US citizens was now owned by a government agency, and prices of opiates and cocaine soared.

More widely felt at first than the Harrison Act was the Alcohol Price Support Program ('Prohibition'), Amendment XVIII, passed in 1919. While the APSP had some of the same effects as the Drug War (more murders, more deaths from adulterated products, etc)[2], it fell short of its potential for several reasons. The most prominent of these reasons was that Alcohol Prohibition operated within the US legal system, and thus died ignominiously in 1933 when it was repealed.

The Drug War did not repeat this mistake. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and the other informal traditions of the Drug War simply asserted their own legitimacy, with no appeal to Constitutional authority. In fact, many government agencies draw the authority for their actions from their alleged usefulness to the Drug War. The invasion of Panama, the foreign aid to the Taliban regime and other dictatorships, and many other semi-clandestine extra-legal activities have no authority other than that which they draw from the semi-clandestine, extra-legal Drug War.

The Inversion of Authority

This new inverted authority supersedes all other civil authority, in the same way that the witch manias of medieval Europe did. At this point in history the entire US population, drug-using or not, lives in a state of perpetual Double Secret Probation. At any time of day or night, black-masked hoodlums waving German submachine guns and cursing wildly may kick in your doors, shoot you and/or your dogs and throw your family on the floor. Your property may be forfeited without trial. And just as in the witch manias, all sorts of false testimony can be used against you without recourse. If the ritually masked hoodlums bring their own drugs with them, and "find" them on your property, you are guilty. (In Dallas, they only have to "find" some billiard chalk... but that is another story).

Note to the masked hoodlums of Dallas: Unlike our recent Presidents, I have never used any illegal drugs of any kind, and most of my friends are biologists and chemists. So don't try the billiard chalk stunt on me, you bastards.

Conspiracy Theories of Drug Price Supports

There are many in the mainstream media who promote a conspiratorial origin of the Drug War. Their claim is that the Congress, CIA, DEA, etc. (all groups noted for their altruism and concern for the common man) are engaged in a massive conspiracy to promote public health by raising the cost of certain drugs. Like most conspiracy theories, it is somewhat nondisprovable as to its claims for the motivations of the political classes. However, we can disprove the notion that raising the cost of drugs to users is good for them.

There have been many controlled experiments in this field. Take the previously mentioned case of US alcohol Prohibition. Deaths from adulterated alcohol soared during Prohibition, then went back down after repeal. Murder rates also went up, as did the economic cost of providing alcohol. Alcoholism rates were not affected. Then to add insult to injury, modern studies have proved that moderate alcohol consumption is an important component of cardiac health. So it's a good thing that Prohibition failed so completely, or millions would have suffered early heart attacks.

Another controlled experiment was Canada's attempt to put a $5 tax on cigarettes. Mass smuggling began immediately through the Mohawk Nation, with the usual murders and mayhem. Did Canadians quit smoking because their nicotine cost more? Did anyone expect them to? Of course not. New York has tried the same thing many times, with similar consequences: here

The same story is repeated with opiates and cocaine. Before the Harrison Act, Americans used cocaine and opiates. Just like Rush Limbaugh, most of them used their drugs to overcome the various pains of life, while continuing to hold down their jobs and live their lives. Cheap heroin and cocaine didn't cause financial havoc for the users. And of course, most people weren't affected... because they didn't touch the stuff. Abstinence was somewhat promoted by the fact that drugstore sellers of legal drugs didn't come into the junior high schools and push their wares.

Death rates from illegal drugs are less than precise. Still, it is clear that hundreds of thousands of people die from tobacco use yearly, while deaths from all illegal drugs are estimated to be in the neighborhood of 5,000. Deaths from alcoholism and alcohol/drug interactions are in the tens of thousands; overdose deaths from marijuana (a drug with some substitution potential for alcohol) are zero.

The final nail in the benevolent-conspiracy theory is this: it is forbidden to sell safer alternative recreational drugs. The pharmaceutical companies are quite capable of providing drugs that mimic alcohol, nicotine, or whatever you want with fewer side effects... but there is no FDA category for "recreational drug". Anyone who tries to save the cirrhotic liver of the alcoholic will be locked up. This shows that whatever the motivation of the Drug War, it isn't concern for health.

The Costs of Drug Price Supports

Cost #1: Taxes. The US government claims that the direct tax costs of Prohibition are about 39 billion dollars this year. (Source: here) Now, this is only the direct costs for openly designated Drug War programs. While 39 billion dollars every single year may not seem like much to politicians, in an absolute sense it is a lot of money. For instance, if the biotech industry had an extra 39 billion in capital every year, cancer could be wiped out in a few years. Like so many government programs, however, the direct tax costs are nothing compared to the effects of the programs themselves.

Cost #2: The high cost of illegal drugs. All estimates of this cost are suspect (they are provided by those with a vested interest in making the problem appear as big as possible). But while the actual number of drug users may be open to debate, there is no question that legal heroin and cocaine only cost about as much as aspirin; marijuana is literally a weed. Now that they are illegal, they cost the economy tens of billions.

Cost #3: Loss of labor. As mentioned earlier, about 1.5 million people are arrested for drug possession and/or sale every year. When these people are making license plates instead of working their normal jobs, their productivity is lost to the economy.

Cost #4: Real (not victimless) crime. Murder has soared since the Drug War expanded in the 1970s: here Other crime rates attained heights in recent decades that make the Wild West look like Amish country. Inner-city youth can find easy "careers" as drug distributors. If drugs were legalized, these careers would disappear, along with drive-by shootings and "gangsta culture".

Cost #5: Terrorism. Every half-baked wannabe dictator with a few AK-47s can fund his nonproductive lifestyle with illegal drug sales. From the Taliban to the FARC in Colombia, terrorist groups make money from the US drug trade. If cocaine and heroin cost no more than aspirin, all these moochers would have to get real jobs.

And of course, all the law enforcement effort and prison space that goes into catching and jailing marijuana users is not available to look for murderers and terrorists. After 9-11, supposedly our politician's priorities changed... but they didn't. Any serious attempt to catch terrorists smuggling weapons doesn't have a chance of finding them among the thundering herds of drug smugglers.

So.... Why Drug Price Supports?

Drug Prohibition's costs are obviously much greater than any possible benefits... to the general public. So why does every political hack from Rush Limbaugh to the most leftist Democrat advocate Drug Prohibition? For the same reason that politicians support price supports for milk or plywood: they increase the power of politicians. All price supports confer arbitrary power on those who administer them. Every "cost" I've listed above is a "profit" for the parasitic class. Let's run through them again:

Cost #1: Taxes. The US government claims that the direct tax costs of Prohibition are about 39 billion dollars this year.

To the politician, a pointless bureaucracy isn't a cost. It's a source of patronage and contracts.

Cost #2: The high cost of illegal drugs. To the politician, an artificially high price isn't a cost. It's a source he can use to fund his friends and influence foreign countries.

Cost #3: Loss of labor. The ability to lock political opponents up at will is worth billions to any politician. Not to mention, felons can't vote or own firearms, so the more convicts, the fewer effective political opponents. Of course politicians' children may get arrested occasionally for Prohibition violations, but that just makes them more dependent on Dear Old Dad.

And like any other bureaucracy, the prison industry is a source of patronage and contracts.

Cost #4: Real (not victimless) crime. There was no Federal gun control in the US until after Prohibition; US citizens had machine guns, artillery pieces, tanks, whatever. The first national gun control law was passed in the 1930s, supposedly as an anti-gangster measure; it put a $200 tax on great- Grandpa's tommy gun. Today's gun control is justified as an anti- "gangsta" measure; supposedly if we confiscate Grandma's .38, this will prevent drive-by shootings from inner-city youth using illegal full-auto AKs. While not heavily dependent on logic, the support for gun control is driven largely by the violence caused by Prohibition.

Cost #5: Terrorism. Needless to say, terrorism is not a "cost" to those who want to expand government power. Drug Prohibition can be used by the US Imperator as a casus belli against any nation anywhere, for what nation does not "harbor" evil drug lords who sell their wares in the US? Drug Prohibition can be used as an excuse to give foreign aid to literally any regime; remember, even the Taliban received "anti-drug" money.[3] And finally the drug trade can be manipulated to divert money from one regime to another by selective anti- smuggling enforcement.

The Obvious Solutions

The obvious solution for the productive classes is to abolish all price supports, whether for milk, cocaine, or prescription painkillers. Abolition of Drug Prohibition in the US would effectively end it worldwide. This would return trillions of dollars and millions of people to productive work, and divert their support from the parasitic classes around the world.

The obvious solution is different for Rush Limbaugh (and all other members of the parasitic classes). Rush will suffer through a pointless "rehab", get a more discreet Oxycontin dealer, and go back to loudly and vigorously supporting the Cocaine Price Support Program... with half his brain tied up with synthetic opiates behind his back.

---

References

1. http://www.independent.org/tii/media/pdf/tir72levine.pdf

2. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121es.html

3. http://cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-071es.html

---

Bill Walker (telomerase2@aol.com) is a Research Associate at the Shay-Wright lab at UT Southwestern Medical Center.

[Sir Gawain]

-

[Wolfie]

Under benefits, add in the huge influx of capital to worldwide financial institutions. Can you imagine what would happen to the economy if all that diry money just up and disappeared?

[JmyBryan]

Unfortunately, the voters still believe in the WOD. Especially upper-middle class mommies with teens in high school. I often argue with these citizens, pointing out that the first place I would go to find out where to get illegal drugs is, of course, their local high school. Their solution is always stiffer penalties for the evil drug "pusher".

[Wolfie]

That's because upper-middle class teens go on the rehab track, instead of the punishment track. Of course, that's by design, as it allows the Drug War machinery to plow onward without too much complaining from the people who count.

[Servant of the 9]

End the WOD

Think of it as Evolution in Action.

So9

[WOSG]

Econ 101 tells us lower price means higher demand and consumption.

Also, lower price can more than make up for lower price, creating huge increases in profit, demand and total market size. The computer industry is a perfect example of this.
Profits can be huge on mass-market goods.

McCrack outlets anyone?

Legalize it, and the 'dirty money' will become 'legal money' landing in the pockets of lobbyists,congressmen, and others trying to convince us that bad habits that cost us money, sanity and health are actually okay.
Look at gambling. Used to be small-time and "dirty"... Now gambling money buys elections!

[concerned about politics]

Rush is getting help to stop future dependancy. He's setting a good example to all drug users.
There. That ends this e-mail.
Drugs are dangerous things. Never legalize them, or support them in any way.
America let homosexuality slide, and now we're spending millions to find a cure for their plagues. Abortion was legalized, and now America has billions of dead children in garbage bags on their conscience, and even the children are killing children.
If it doesn't promote life , stop it. America is on a down hill path the way it is. Without a drastic turn around, image the U.S. another generation from now.

No. Fight the drug wars. It has to be done. Purfume can cover the stench, but the stench will still be there.

[.cnI redruM]

Tax Crack and Heroin - Balance THe Budget Tommorrow!!

[Sir Gawain]

Never legalize them, or support them in any way.

You mean re-legalize.

[headsonpikes]

Everything's going according to plan.

Truly, this is the best of all possible worlds!

[corkoman]

Econ 101 tells us lower price means higher demand and consumption

You went to a bad biz school. Lower prices can affect consumption but if it does so it satisfies and therefore reduces demand.

You cant have your coke and eat it too.

[corkoman]

Drugs are dangerous things. Never legalize them, or support them in any way.

Ok - from now on you are not to take ANY drugs. Including antibiotocs and hypertension drugs - the whole lot. Dont or you should turn yourself in to the authorities.

Dope.

[WOSG]

huh? Your comment is wholly oxymoronic!

Lower price yields higher consumption.

If you find a single economist to dispute that, cite him or her.

[corkoman]

huh? Your comment is wholly oxymoronic! Lower price yields higher consumption. If you find a single economist to dispute that, cite him or her.

I'll let you read it again before I call you a moron.

[concerned about politics]

Ok - from now on you are not to take ANY drugs. Including antibiotocs and hypertension drugs - the whole lot. Dont or you should turn yourself in to the authorities.

LOL. I don't take them anyway.
Our proscription drug cost for our whole family is $0.00.
Believe it or not, those things you mentioned can be controled just fine with simple food and weeds. LOL.

"...and they would not repent of their pharmaceuticals (Pharmacudici)."

[bird4four4]

He's right. If its a product that people don't want, you can lower the price all you want and people will not buy it, if it doesn't satisfy the consumer.

Is the onlything stopping you from giving coke a try because it's $80? You and your family would give it a try if the price dropped to $5?

[adam_az]

Econ 101 tells us lower price means higher demand and consumption

Actually, the postulate is that when the price goes down, the QUANTITY DEMANDED goes up, not the Demand. Quantity demanded is due to a change in price, while a change in Demand is due to anything else.

Look at gambling. Used to be small-time and "dirty"... Now gambling money buys elections!

Of course, when casinos give money to politicians, it's a matter of public record and campaign finance disclosure laws apply. When a drug cartel does it, no one hears about it, we are secretly subjugated to it's effects. Neither is ideal, but which causes less harm? I would say bringing it into the open.

[Boner1]

Thank's for the great article
MSNBC will air a propaganda story on white collar percription(sp) drug addicts, Starting @1:30 10/20/2003 on Drugs used by white collar people , you can send your comments and questions before hand .

[WOSG]

That's a funny way you have of being wrong ...

"Econ 101 tells us lower price means higher demand and consumption" is true.

100% true. Dispute it? give a cite.

You'll find this truth in any basic econ 101 exposition of the supply-demand curve, eg:

http://www.ncee.net/ea/standards/standard.php?sid=8
"High prices for a good or service provide incentives for buyers to purchase less of that good or service, and for producers to make or sell more of it. Lower prices for a good or service provide incentives for buyers to purchase more of that good or service, and for producers to make or sell less of it."

You have a mistaken understanding of "demand" btw, check:
http://www.facsnet.org/tools/ref_tutor/econo_term/glossary.html

[concerned about politics]

Is the onlything stopping you from giving coke a try because it's $80? You and your family would give it a try if the price dropped to $5?

The kids could buy it with their allowance. Think of the cool parties they could have then!

[adam_az]

Drugs are dangerous things.

I guess reading comprehension is a dangerous thing, too? You clearly didn't read this article, all you did was post a rant which is countered by the facts presented in this article, without referring to why said facts are wrong.

Also, the comparison of drugs to abortion falls flat. While the body that is affected by abortion is definately not yours, the body that is affected by drug use is. Can you please show which part of the constitution allows for the government to regulate what I put into my body, and lock me up for ingesting a non-approved substance for my own good? WoD is nothing but more big government nannyism.

[WOSG]

Quantity demanded is the demand.

Lower price means higher consumption unless price elasticity = 0. This is not such a product - Consumption rises with lower prices.

[adam_az]

You are confusing what he is talking about with the indifference curve.

http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/wpd.pl?fcd=dsp&key=quantity+demanded

[adam_az]

Believe it or not, those things you mentioned can be controled just fine with simple food and weeds. LOL.

And when the government decides that one of the "weeds? you use is now a forbidden substance, with users to be punished by improsonment and property forfeiture?

[concerned about politics]

I guess reading comprehension is a dangerous thing, too? You clearly didn't read this article, all you did was post a rant which is countered by the facts presented in this article, without referring to why said facts are wrong.

It's just silly. If Americans were to start thinking positively, and stop spending so much brain power on "woe is me", the drug companies would go bankrupt overnight!
The mind is the builder, the physical is the result.
There's WAY too many hypocondiacs in this country. Get over it! Life isn't that bad, really. Turn off the damn TV once in a while. Go for a walk!

[adam_az]

Demand and quantity demanded are two different things.

Quantity Demanded is the amount of a good a consumer is willing and able to buy at a particular price at a particular time, ceteris paribus.

Demand is a schedule of the quantities consumers are willing and able to buybau at various prices over a specified time period , ceteris paribus.

These definitions are important when analyzing a demand curve. The difference between D and Qd is key in properly understanding the curve.

[concerned about politics]

And when the government decides that one of the "weeds? you use is now a forbidden substance, with users to be punished by improsonment and property forfeiture?

They'd never be able to do it. They're wild, and grow all over the country. Plus, if one is taken, go to the next. There's lots of them that serve the same purpose.
Imagine outlawing the dandylion (liver medicine)!

[tahiti]

"Never legalize them..."

So you are admitting that religions and religious organizations are complete failures in their quest to teach and implement the proper moral foundation which would help children and adults sensibly not participate in the corrosive drug and homosexual lifestyles and you now advocate that it takes the "power" of a secular government's "laws" to teach such morality?

[adam_az]

It's just silly. If Americans were to start thinking positively, and stop spending so much brain power on "woe is me", the drug companies would go bankrupt overnight! The mind is the builder, the physical is the result.

What does ANY of that have to do with this article, or the fact that our government has usurped our individual freedom, unconstitutionally, depriving citizens of liberty for posession or consumption of plants and substances which occur naturally, or your original ranting post which had nothing to do with the topic of this thread, strawman?

[WOSG]

so your postulate is that highly addictive drugs are items that people 'just dont want'. gimme a break!

"Is the onlything stopping you from giving coke a try because it's $80? You and your family would give it a try if the price dropped to $5? "

My coca-cola consumption would go down if a case cost $80 instead of $5. I only have zero desire because I'm a mature adult - back as a teenager I didnt try it, but I was offered it enough times; cheap enough price, who knows? For those foolish enough to try harder addictive drugs, the same principle holds. There are plenty of kids with loose change who can be fooled into getting hooked if the price of 'entry' was low enough. Even hooked, price impacts ability to buy a quantity if not the psychologically addictive desire - hence it does impact effective demand.

Let me ask you, if a blight afflicted coca growers in South America and the supply was restricted what would happen to the price? What would happen to demand? and consumption?
Price would go up, consumption would go down.

Drugs really affect peoples logical thinking I guess; Econ 101 doesnt apply to drugs - that's a new one. LOL!

[adam_az]

They'd never be able to do it. They're wild, and grow all over the country. Plus, if one is taken, go to the next. There's lots of them that serve the same purpose.

Oh, like Marijuana/Hemp, which grows on every continent save antarctica, and in every state of the Union?

[Libertina]

Publius Ping

[adam_az]

There are plenty of kids with loose change who can be fooled into getting hooked if the price of 'entry' was low enough. Even hooked, price impacts ability to buy a quantity if not the psychologically addictive desire - hence it does impact effective demand.

Kids have easier access to illegal drugs than adults as it is. Most kids would have an easier time buying ecstasy or speed than beer, these days.

[Sir Gawain]

My coca-cola consumption would go down if a case cost $80 instead of $5.

Bad analogy. My coca-cola consumption would not go up if a case cost a penny vs. $5. I would buy the case, but the cheaper price wouldn't make me drink more of it.

[adam_az]

Bad analogy. My coca-cola consumption would not go up if a case cost a penny vs. $5. I would buy the case, but the cheaper price wouldn't make me drink more of it.

That is called the indifference curve. As you consume more, your marginal satisfaction decreases. (marginal meaning the additional satisfaction you derive from consuming one more can of coke.)

[WOSG]

On definition: demand D is just the whole schedule of quantities demanded Qd over each price, acc. to your link.
That makes Qd the price-point value and D the overall function. One is merely the functional aggregation of the other over price-points.

Your link proves my point, that the demand curve is universally drawn as a monotonically descending function.

It remains an Econ 101 truism that lower prices mean higher quantity of demand and higher consumption. (as per your semantic correction)

Which leads to the obvious conclusion: Higher drug prices does cut (quantity of) demand and consumption.

[concerned about politics]

So you are admitting that religions and religious organizations are complete failures in their quest to teach and implement the proper moral foundation which would help children and adults sensibly not participate in the corrosive drug and homosexual lifestyles and

Oh yeh, Churches have been demonized by the politically correct. They're falling behind due to liberal doctrine entering their gates.
Parents have been decieved into giving their children to "The village" to be raised. Big mistake!

and you now advocate that it takes the "power" of a secular government's "laws" to teach such morality?

No, just don't endorse the opposite of morality.
No, don't make laws supporting drug use. That'd be pretty stupid.

[adam_az]

Which leads to the obvious conclusion: Higher drug prices does cut (quantity of) demand and consumption.

To some extent yes, but the amount depends on the elasticity of demand for a good. For product with a relatively inelastic demand curve, such as salt, cigarettes, or crack cocaine, higher prices do not translate to much Qd, and conversely lower prices do not translate to much higher Qd.

[adam_az]

No, don't make laws supporting drug use. That'd be pretty stupid.

Are you purposefully ignoring the point that the laws prohibiting drug use cause more economic and human cost than the drug use it's self? Where's the morality in that?

[concerned about politics]

They'd never be able to do it. They're wild, and grow all over the country. Plus, if one is taken, go to the next. There's lots of them that serve the same purpose.

Oh, like Marijuana/Hemp, which grows on every continent save antarctica, and in every state of the Union?

So does the deadly nightshade. What's your point? Eat poison plants? They're good for you?
Gee, good legislation - NOT!

[bird4four4]

That's what I'm saying. Lowering the price of cola is not going to make people drink more cola. And lowering the price of Cocain will not make people rush down the local crack house and give it go, just because its cheap. I think the demand will be the same.

You can show me all the graphs you want, but if people don't want a product, or want 1 not 1,000 lowering the price will not force them to try or to buy more than they demand.

[WOSG]

It's a good analogy: I knew a guy who packed a litre a day of the stuff in...
average consumption is well below that.

Even if *your* marginal propesnity to consume is unaffected, there are others who are.

I am very price sensitive in my buying of coke. waiting for it to go on sale, etc. Lower price would displace other items. Higher price? Avoid it entirely - who needs it?

How many people really need hard drugs to live?
To be happy? How many would give $20,000-$100,000 or more
a year to have drugs to maintain an addictive habit?

Now how many would take 'em if they were freebies in a McD Happy Meal?

[lodwick]

Genius post - thanks for all the work that went into this one.

[concerned about politics]

What does ANY of that have to do with this article, or the fact that our government has usurped our individual freedom, unconstitutionally, depriving citizens of liberty for posession or consumption of plants and substances which occur naturally, or your original ranting post which had nothing to do with the topic of this thread, strawman?

Because most of them aren't necessary, and don't grow naturally. they're processed into something else.
Why add to the chaos by endorising more, straw man?

You can put purfume on the stink, but it's still there! Stop the poison, and advocate health. What's wrong with that?

[WOSG]

"That's what I'm saying. Lowering the price of cola is not going to make people drink more cola."

Your opinion. YOu are wrong.

" And lowering the price of Cocain will not make people rush down the local crack house and give it go, just because its cheap. I think the demand will be the same. "

Wrong again. Price impacts how much is demanded and how much is consumed.

"but if people don't want a product,"

Where did you get the nutty idea nobody wants drugs?
why are so many pot-heads wanting to legalize something "nobody wants" ???
Why is there harmful, addictive and even dangerous drug use at such large scales even though it is illegal? If anything, the persistence of drug use suggests ONE thing: It is wanted!

[concerned about politics]

. Are you purposefully ignoring the point that the laws prohibiting drug use cause more economic and human cost than the drug use it's self? Where's the morality in that?

Sure. It's the money, honey.
Give every kid in America a cheap crack pipe to prove your point. Sheeesh!

[_Jim]

End the WOD

End the NEED for drugs in the human equation ...

[adam_az]

How about the fact that the WoD does more harm to innocent persons than all drug use?

[headsonpikes]

What's your point?

Are you of the opinion that the Government ought to check out and then either approve or disapprove of every edible species?...Seriously?

Surely, we live not by lawyers alone.