Posted on 12/17/2002 9:39:06 AM PST by Joe Bonforte
To examine the proposition by Libertarians, and now Mr. Burton we must look at the entire picture, and the end result.
You are correct to assume that, in accordance with the nature of supply and demand, by reducing the supply, you increase the demand and by increasing the demand you raise the value of said product or service.
So, yes, by reducing the ability of hard drugs to find their way to the US, you increase the market value of those drugs. By doing that, you raise the motivation of dealers and producers to produce and send more drugs to the US. In contrast, by legalizing, you will indeed cut the legs out from under the cartels and dealers.
However we must also weight the effects of said action to the consumers of these narcotics. While the mean ol' cartels would likely go out of business, the consumers of the legalized substances would have more motivation to use. The product would be more readily available, for a cheaper price, and with a virtually nill likelyhood of getting a bad product.
So, while you may have remedied the supply side, killing off the cartels and giving the job of production over to corporations, you INCREASE the motivation of users and non users to use MORE.
I don't see that as a good thing.
People might get the idea that they have a right to control their own body. They might think that they have a right to buy medical drugs without a perscription.
Then where will the Doctors and insurance companies be? Broke, that's where.
What will happen to all those lawyers. The prosecutors and defenders?
Oh, no. We can't let that happen. We must continue to destroy people's lives so we can have high paying jobs.
They do have that right. Just not in a community where irresponsible use of a drug results in harm of others in the community. This would apply to narcotics that when used irresponsibly, result in citizens that are a risk to others, or to antibiotics, that when used irresponsibly can result in creating immune bacteria that cannot be cured by simple antibiotics anymore, ect, ect.
There was no drug war until about 90 years ago. But there were plenty of drugs readily available even right in the Sears and Roebuck cataloge (cocaine). Yet we had a smaller problem with drug use than now.
I submit that if people want to use drugs, they will. No matter if its legal or not. So I don't believe your premise that you INCREASE the motivation of users. Yes, the price is lower. But availability (if retail sales of drugs is still illegal) may be less than today because there's no big money to be made. So I believe that if done correctly, drug legalization can actually help the drug USE problem
I understand your concern, though I don't share it because I don't believe making drugs legal would lead to the dire consequences you predict. But let's assume those consequences did come true. Do you believe that situation is worse than what we have now?
Remember the hundreds of thousands in prison for non-violent offenses, ripping up families and leaving kids without parents. Remember the hundreds or thousands killed each year in the drug war violence, many of them innocent bystanders. Remember the erosion of Constitutional rights as the 4th Amendment becomes practically meaningless.
I'm not trying to bait you. I just want to know if you really think all those things are preferable to increased drug usage - hypothetical increased usage at that.
I don't see that as a good thing.
Just like ending Prohibition reduced the disincentives of alcohol users. Was that a good thing? If not, should Prohibition have been continued?
And why should I, a non-drug-user, have to pay---in tax dollars, a justice system corupted by drug money, and increased threat from drug-turf wars---to "protect" others from their own weaknesses?
Alcohol fits that description better than many illegal drugs. Do you support banning alcohol?
After all, they kill people routinely already, so it shouldn't be much of a surprize if Pfizer's Vice President for Recreational Drugs goes up in a ball of flame in the company parking lot: or Ma and Pa Smith get wasted in their convenience store the day after they start carrying marijuana.
I don't have a solution, but we ought to recognize that the cartels have an interest in maintaining an artificial shortage, and the means to do so.
Does legal booze keep people out of the bars? Last time I went, they were quite packed. Also, have you checked out any college campuses lately? Wanna know the most prevalent drug? The LEGAL one, Alcohol. Easy access, cheap, and fun for the whole frat.
You think that giving Phillips & Morris the job of supplying Cocaine or Heroin that they won't make BIG money? What are you smoking?
So, while you may have remedied the supply side, killing off the cartels and giving the job of production over to corporations, you INCREASE the motivation of users and non users to use MORE.
Your analogy only works in terms of a general commodity market, where cost is the only downside. Drugs have their own inherent cost, and people recognize that. If cost was the primary deterrent to people doing drugs, I'd think you would see a substantial increase in drug use as you move up the economic scale, but you don't. Removing the profit from drugs stands to have a much greater affect on the associated crime rate than the rate of usage because there are much different motivating factors involved, respectively. - IMHO
I'd put it this way. I like the state I live in, but if it decided to legalize all drugs, I would be out of here faster than you can say epidemic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.