[Mannaggia l'America]

Someone who is coming to work fried will probably not be fired for being fried--Most likely that person will get fired for lack of performance on the job.

Let's say drugs are legalized.

Joe Schmoe can now get all the (drug of choice) he wants and can afford - and that will be lots more because I was told in a previous post that ending the WOD will remove the profit from selling drugs, so they will be cheaper.

So now Joe Schmoe can be even more self-destructive and get fried, and as you said above, will likely get fired from his job because of poor performance. But that's his problem, not ours.

But now Joe Schmoe has no job. But he's addicted to (drug of choice). So where does Joe get money to feed his addiction?

Can we say "crime"? (Oh wait, ending the WOD ended crime...)

Or does the government now have a "drug stamp" program, like food stamps. (That wouldn't be very libertarian...)

[rottndog]

Ending the WOD will not remove the profit from drugs; Only removing demand can do that, and as we have seen, this is not possible. Ending the WOD will remove the criminal element and the criminality from the supply side--this will drive down the costs, and hence the price of the drugs. If drugs cost less and can be bought legally, end users are much less likely to engage in criminal activity to acquire them. This is simple supply and demand economics.

But don't take my word for it. This has been tried before. It's in the history books, and it's part of the U.S. Constitution. Prohibition didn't and can't work for alcohol, prohibition isn't and can't work for drugs.

As far as Joe Schmoe goes, if he commits crimes, throw his A$$ in jail.

[Mushinronshasan]

Someone who is coming to work fried will probably not be fired for being fried--Most likely that person will get fired for lack of performance on the job.

Let's say drugs (bottles of wine) are legalized.

Joe Schmoe can now get all the (drug of choice) (alchohol) he wants and can afford - and that will be lots more (liquor store) because I was told in a previous post that ending the WOD will remove the profit from selling drugs (black market profit removed), so they will be cheaper.

So now Joe Schmoe can be even more self-destructive and get fried (totally drunk), and as you said above, will likely get fired from his job because of poor performance. But that's his problem, not ours.

But now Joe Schmoe has no job. But he's addicted to (drug of choice) (alchohol). So where does Joe get money to feed his addiction?

Can we say "crime"? (Oh wait, ending the WOD (repeal of prohibition) ended crime...)

Or does the government now have a "drug stamp" program, like food stamps. (That wouldn't be very libertarian...)

**********************
We've been though this before.

[BlazingArizona]

So now Joe Schmoe can be even more self-destructive and get fried, and as you said above, will likely get fired from his job because of poor performance. But that's his problem, not ours. But now Joe Schmoe has no job. But he's addicted to (drug of choice). So where does Joe get money to feed his addiction?

That's what the Second Amendment is for. Evolution in action: very swiftly, people learn by example not to become addicted spongers.

[JTN]

But now Joe Schmoe has no job. But he's addicted to (drug of choice). So where does Joe get money to feed his addiction? Can we say "crime"? (Oh wait, ending the WOD ended crime...)

It certainly lowers it.

Homicide Rates and Substance Control Policy

My research indicates that the theory of the primary cause of violent crime in the United States which is most consistent with the available data is a violent black market caused by the War on Drugs today, and Prohibition in the 1920’s.

...

Many economists, such as Milton Friedman (1991: 57) and William Niskanen (1992: 238), have argued that the Drug War is responsible for the United States’ crime problem. Bruce Benson et al. (1992: 679) performed a cross-sectional analysis of data from 67 Florida counties in 1986 and 1987 to determine if property crime is positively related to the intensity of drug enforcement activities. Harold Brumm et al. (1995: 509) examined data on 57 cities in 32 states in 1985 to determine if homicide rates are positively correlated with the percentage of a communities law enforcement resources that are devoted to the enforcement of drug laws. Both property crime and violent crime were determined to be positively correlated with the intensity of drug enforcement activities.

...

One possible theory for the correlation between the homicide rate and the substance control proxy is that homicides are caused by drug and alcohol use, and therefore homicides increase as drug and alcohol arrests increase. This theory does not explain the data.

Violence and the U.S. Prohibitions of Drugs and Alcohol(pdf)

This paper examines the relation between prohibitions and violence using the historical behavior of the homicide rate in the United States. The results document that increases in enforcement of drug and alcohol prohibition have been associated with increases in the homicide rate, and auxiliary evidence suggests this positive correlation reflects a causal effect of prohibition enforcement on homicide. Controlling for other potential determinants of the homicide rate -- the age composition of the population, the incarceration rate, economic conditions, gun availability, and the death penalty -- does not alter the conclusion that drug and alcohol prohibition have substantially raised the homicide rate in the United States over much of the past 100 years.