[SecretSquirrel]

Recreational drugs are the very essence of useless and socially harmful consumerism.

Drug dealers get rich for doing essentially nothing.

Drug abusers don't do anything productive except get high all day, and eventually destroy their health (taking medical resources away from people who actually need them) and turn to crime to feed their habit.

There are absolutely no upsides to drug legalization from my perspective.

Sorry to join in late, but I just had to laugh at -- and then reply to -- this entire post

~~

Drug dealers get rich for doing essentially nothing.

Drug dealers in a prohibition environment are participants in a CRIMINAL (by statute) undertaking with involving TREMENDOUS levels of personal and financial risk. They can get killed, robbed, or imprisoned at any point in the production -> refinement -> distribution -> final sale chain. And in many cases, nobody in society will give a shit, because they are criminals (but only because the entire business is criminal by LAW only)

This is in spite of the fact that, economically speaking, the marginal effect of each additional drug producer/wholesaler/dealer is to reduce the cost of drugs to the final user which in term directly reduces all the societal harms which are caused by the use of illicit drugs in a prohibition environment by making it easier for the user to get them.

~~

Drug abusers don't do anything productive except get high all day, and eventually destroy their health (taking medical resources away from people who actually need them) and turn to crime to feed their habit.

Even if every single drug user is completely 100% unproductive, this is still a failure of an argument. Nobody owes anybody else "productivity" (except someone with dependent children).

If society is paying for the healthcare for unproductive drug abusers, the problem is with the law requiring them to pay with public money for individual medical care. Poor attempt at smuggling an assumption and begging the question.

Drug users turn to crime because PROHIBITION causes drugs to cost hundreds of times what they would in a legalised free market setting. Forcing the trade into the criminal black market means that sellers by action of law become criminals, and therefore can and will charge massive risk and scarcity premiums. Hospital morphine costs pennies a dose, but illicit morphine or heroin cost more on the street (because its an illegal transaction) than most addicts can earn in their condition.

Furthermore, an addict who turns to crime (due to his habit being too expensive to pay for with a job because PROHIBITION drove prices up) causes MUCH more damage, measured in dollars, than merely the cost of his drugs. Stolen goods are rarely fenced for over 20% of their actual value; to buy fifty dollars of heroin a junkie steals and fences hundreds of dollars worth of goods. This does not even count the costs of property damage during breaking and entering, or (God forbid) personal injuries caused during robbery.

~~

There are absolutely no upsides to drug legalization from my perspective

I have shown you how drug legalisation would in fact reduce violent crime and property damage as well as encourage workforce participation and productivity of drug users. It would also reduce the wealth and social influence of violent criminal gangs and mafias. All reasons why Mexico is considering legalisation of marijuana -- which would be a good start.

Another pair of major benefits is the greatly improved efficiency of a criminal courts system once it is no longer inundated with millions and millions of nonviolent drug sales or possession arrests, and the money saved by no longer having to house, feed, and take care for millions of nonviolent drugs convicts.

A final benefit is, of course, NOT FUCKING INFRINGING ON A MAN'S LIBERTY TO CONSUME WHATEVER THE FUCK HE WANTS

[AFAIK]

My body is sovereign and no authority should be able to restrict my ability to ingest, inject or inhale any substance, to have sex with whomever I choose for whatever reason I choose or to commit suicide at any time for any reason. If taken to its logical conclusion this argument would support my desire to infect myself with HIV or other diseases, to remove healthy limbs for arbitrary reasons, to donate both my kidneys and live on dialysis for the rest of my now shortened life or to donate vital organs and die on the operating table.

The reason states restrict their subjects' ability to do these things is because it reduces their power. Most of the states' power derives from their ability to tax and conscript/ enlist subjects and they can make only limited use of diseased drug addicts who require regular dialysis sessions.

Since the discussion has turned to drugs I'd like to point out that there are ways of legalising hard drugs whilst reducing their consumption. Processed drugs such as heroin and cocaine could be made available on prescription free of charge. Addicts could seek prescriptions from General Practitioners and would be required to consume the drugs in the doctors presence to ensure they didn't share or sell the drugs to others. This would improve the health of the addicts since they are less likely to overdose or catch a disease, it would put many dealers out of business since they have lost their best customers and with fewer dealers many casual and first time drug users will find it too inconvenient to access drugs so the number of consumers and their individual rate of consumption would fall. Also there would be less petty crime because addicts no longer need money for their fixes.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Recreational drugs are the very essence of useless and socially harmful consumerism.

No that accolade should go to people living in urban areas who drive 4x4's. In fact

Drug dealers get rich for doing essentially nothing.

They source and sell good's. I can think of dozens of occupations with similar job descriptions. And legalising drugs would prevent criminals from benefiting through them.[/quote]
There's a difference between a drug user and a drug abuser. People abuse everything from alcohol to chocolate, where do we draw the line?

Drug abusers don't do anything productive except get high all day, and eventually destroy their health (taking medical resources away from people who actually need them) and turn to crime to feed their habit.

There are absolutely no upsides to drug legalization from my perspective.

So lets legalise drugs so we can tax them.

[Saeko]

Sorry to join in late, but I just had to laugh at -- and then reply to -- this entire post

~~

Drug dealers in a prohibition environment are participants in a CRIMINAL (by statute) undertaking with involving TREMENDOUS levels of personal and financial risk.They can get killed, robbed, or imprisoned at any point in the production -> refinement -> distribution -> final sale chain. And in many cases, nobody in society will give a shit, because they are criminals (but only because the entire business is criminal by LAW only)

If they're risking their lives for a little money, they are fools.

This is in spite of the fact that, economically speaking, the marginal effect of each additional drug producer/wholesaler/dealer is to reduce the cost of drugs to the final user which in term directly reduces all the societal harms which are caused by the use of illicit drugs in a prohibition environment by making it easier for the user to get them.

So by making it easier to for people to get and become addicted to poison you are "reducing all the societal harms which are caused by the use of illici drugs"?

Top. Lel.

Even if every single drug user is completely 100% unproductive, this is still a failure of an argument. Nobody owes anybody else "productivity" (except someone with dependent children).

Nonsense. Everyone owes "productivity" to the society they live in. If everyone thought the way you do, society wouldn't exist.

If society is paying for the healthcare for unproductive drug abusers, the problem is with the law requiring them to pay with public money for individual medical care. Poor attempt at smuggling an assumption and begging the question.

No, I'm pretty sure that the problem is with idiotic people who put poison in their bodies and then whine to the doctors about having been poisoned.

Medical care is a wonderful thing and is enormously beneficial to everyone when everyone has access to it. (Except useless drug addicts and other undesirables)

Drug users turn to crime because PROHIBITION causes drugs to cost hundreds of times what they would in a legalised free market setting. Forcing the trade into the criminal black market means that sellers by action of law become criminals, and therefore can and will charge massive risk and scarcity premiums. Hospital morphine costs pennies a dose, but illicit morphine or heroin cost more on the street (because its an illegal transaction) than most addicts can earn in their condition.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the high price has nothing at all to do with the fact that drug dealers are exploiting an addiction to an addictive substance which addicts will pay or risk anything to get for no other reason than that they are addicted.

Furthermore, an addict who turns to crime (due to his habit being too expensive to pay for with a job because PROHIBITION drove prices up) causes MUCH more damage, measured in dollars, than merely the cost of his drugs. Stolen goods are rarely fenced for over 20% of their actual value; to buy fifty dollars of heroin a junkie steals and fences hundreds of dollars worth of goods. This does not even count the costs of property damage during breaking and entering, or (God forbid) personal injuries caused during robbery.

Not if he's in jail or in the ground, where he belongs.

I have shown you how drug legalisation would in fact reduce violent crime and property damage as well as encourage workforce participation and productivity of drug users. It would also reduce the wealth and social influence of violent criminal gangs and mafias. All reasons why Mexico is considering legalisation of marijuana -- which would be a good start.

Yeah what better way to get people to work than by keeping them addicted to drugs, forcing them to work in order to feed, not their children and themselves, but their drug habbit instead? Things would be so much better if we just legalized drugs and let the free market take care of everything. /sarcasm

Another pair of major benefits is the greatly improved efficiency of a criminal courts system once it is no longer inundated with millions and millions of nonviolent drug sales or possession arrests, and the money saved by no longer having to house, feed, and take care for millions of nonviolent drugs convicts.

Our justice system would be even more "efficient" if we just did away with the law altogether.

A final benefit is, of course, NOT FUCKING INFRINGING ON A MAN'S LIBERTY TO CONSUME WHATEVER THE FUCK HE WANTS

Do you support the right of pedophiles to view illicit pornography as well?

EDIT:

There's no such thing as a victimless crime. When you abuse drugs, you are making Big Brother cry.

[mikema63]

By and large we could regulate and limit most drugs if they were legal and reduce violence from the drug war drastically, we would cripple much of the gang violence that exists in the US and supplying countries, and would get a nice bit of revenue for the government.

On balance I also don't think you'll see all that much of a surge in drug use and what little you do will be more than offset by the reduction of violence.

Even if you are anti-drug in principle, complete illegalization has been a complete failure as a practical matter, and there should be more room for practicality in american politics and much much less idealism.

[Saeko]

Some are more than others. Smoking in shared spaces, for example, exposes others to toxic substances. But I'd say idiots who ride loud motorcycles on city streets are doing more harm than someone who smokes weed once or twice a week in the privacy of their home. People who let their dogs shit in public parks and don't clean it up are worse than someone who has a couple of drinks at a party.

Agreed. There are things that are more harmful than doing drugs. But doing drugs is generally more harmful than most activities.

Oh, garbage. They are meeting a demand, same as any merchant. If you want to see people getting rich for doing and contributing nothing, check out banksters and landowners.

They do not merely meet a demand, they also create it. When you can control both what people want and the means to satisfying that want, you have established control and domination over them.

Much the same with banksters and landowners, but drug dealers are just a lower form of bottom-feeding scum.

False and absurd. Some studies have actually found a positive correlation between alcohol consumption and income. I think their methodologies are suspect, but still.

You are right to think their methodology is suspect. I wonder what correlation they would get by comparing Meth or Heroin use with income.

That depends on the drug. There is no evidence that marijuana users do so, and plenty of evidence that abusers of, say, junk food are doing far more harm to their health than potheads. The social medical costs of legal tobacco use far outweigh the medical costs of all illegal drugs combined.

Agreed. Junk food and tobacco need to be eliminated as well.

Only because prohibition makes their drug atrociously expensive. When heroin was legal, there were hundreds of thousands of addicts, and there was no evidence that their crime rate was greater than that of the general population.

No, addiction is what causes high street prices. Prohibition has nothing to do with how addicted you are to an addictive susbstance.

[Saeko]

By and large we could regulate and limit most drugs if they were legal

Why exactly would we legalize drugs just so we could regulate and limit them? We're already regulating and limitting them by prohibitting them completely.

and reduce violence from the drug war drastically, we would cripple much of the gang violence that exists in the US and supplying countries, and would get a nice bit of revenue for the government.

No we wouldn't. All we would get is gangs shooting up legitimate drug stores and suppliers over turf. That's what most gang violence is caused by. The desire to control turf. That incentive has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of drugs.

On balance I also don't think you'll see all that much of a surge in drug use and what little you do will be more than offset by the reduction of violence.

People will go into debt spending enormous amounts of money buying stupid shit that they will never use. (Black Friday is coming up, btw) What the hell makes you think that they will be able to control themselves around highly addictive substances?

Even if you are anti-drug in principle, complete illegalization has been a complete failure as a practical matter, and there should be more room for practicality in american politics and much much less idealism.

Only through lack of will. I'm pretty sure if America could defeat the Nazis, stamp the Socialist and Worker's movements out of existence, and put a man on the fucking Moon, then it can eliminate drugs and a few petty gangs as well.

[AFAIK]

Even if you are anti-drug in principle, complete illegalization has been a complete failure as a practical matter, and there should be more room for practicality in american politics and much much less idealism.

Many Asian countries were able to dramatically reduce the consumption of opium after regaining full sovereignty over their territory. I'm not familiar with the details but I imagine America wouldn't be able to emulate their success whilst maintaining an open society.

Why exactly would we legalize drugs just so we could regulate and limit them? We're already regulating and limitting them by prohibitting them completely.

Did you see my earlier post about prescribing drugs to addicts?
Do you think it's workable?

[Saeko]

Did you see my earlier post about prescribing drugs to addicts?
Do you think it's workable?

Only in the context of a wider and more concerted effort to eliminate drugs entirely.

[SecretSquirrel]

Fascism. Not even once.

[Pants-of-dog]

Only in the context of a wider and more concerted effort to eliminate drugs entirely.

You never answered my question regarding recreational vehicle use. I assume you wish to eliminate that entirely as well.

[Saeko]

You never answered my question regarding recreational vehicle use. I assume you wish to eliminate that entirely as well.

Yes, actually. We would save a lot of gas.

[Truth To Power]

Some are more than others. Smoking in shared spaces, for example, exposes others to toxic substances. But I'd say idiots who ride loud motorcycles on city streets are doing more harm than someone who smokes weed once or twice a week in the privacy of their home. People who let their dogs shit in public parks and don't clean it up are worse than someone who has a couple of drinks at a party.

Agreed. There are things that are more harmful than doing drugs. But doing drugs is generally more harmful than most activities.

But we recognize in general that people have a right to do things that aren't good for them. It's when they do things that aren't good for others that we take exception.

Oh, garbage. They are meeting a demand, same as any merchant. If you want to see people getting rich for doing and contributing nothing, check out banksters and landowners.

They do not merely meet a demand, they also create it.

Same as any company.

When you can control both what people want and the means to satisfying that want, you have established control and domination over them.

It's absurd to claim that drug dealers can control what people want, or that they can control the means of satisfying their desire. It is GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION that controls the means of satisfying their wants, not the dealers.

Much the same with banksters and landowners, but drug dealers are just a lower form of bottom-feeding scum.

No, landowners and banksters take far more from society, and contribute less.

False and absurd. Some studies have actually found a positive correlation between alcohol consumption and income. I think their methodologies are suspect, but still.

You are right to think their methodology is suspect. I wonder what correlation they would get by comparing Meth or Heroin use with income.

The point is, things are not as simple as you think.

That depends on the drug. There is no evidence that marijuana users do so, and plenty of evidence that abusers of, say, junk food are doing far more harm to their health than potheads. The social medical costs of legal tobacco use far outweigh the medical costs of all illegal drugs combined.

Agreed. Junk food and tobacco need to be eliminated as well.

You either think people have rights to liberty or you don't. You don't. Simple.

:roll: Only because prohibition makes their drug atrociously expensive. When heroin was legal, there were hundreds of thousands of addicts, and there was no evidence that their crime rate was greater than that of the general population.

No, addiction is what causes high street prices.

No, that's false and absurd. In South Korea, many people are addicted to alcohol and tobacco, but prices are dirt cheap because they are not taxed, and no one tries to stop the supply from reaching consumers.

Prohibition has nothing to do with how addicted you are to an addictive susbstance.

But addiction is only demand. Price only rises when SUPPLY is restricted. As by prohibition.

GET IT???

[Saeko]

But we recognize in general that people have a right to do things that aren't good for them. It's when they do things that aren't good for others that we take exception.

I don't see why the state should be allowed to prevent people from harming others, but not themselves.

If it was a few people doing stupid shit, the problems they cause would be so miniscule as to not even be worthy of attention. The trouble is that every idiot and his mother thinks in exactly the same way. And when you have millions of people harming themselves, then you have a very serious problem.

Same as any company.

Marketing is also economically and sociall harmful. Just look at the obesity crisis we have in America now.

Creating demand for things that are not at all necessary is inherently wasteful.

It's absurd to claim that drug dealers can control what people want, or that they can control the means of satisfying their desire. It is GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION that controls the means of satisfying their wants, not the dealers.

No it's not. Addictive drugs are addictive. A person who is not addicted to cocaine will not spend anywhere near as much money on it as a person who is. Drug dealers know this, and often offer freebies to new buyers in order to get them addicted.

It is GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION that controls the means of satisfying their wants, not the dealers.

It's obviously both. The dealers set the prices, and the government makes such transactions illegal.

No, landowners and banksters take far more from society, and contribute less.

So?

The point is, things are not as simple as you think.

Nah, I'm pretty sure things are actually much simpler than most people think.

You either think people have rights to liberty or you don't. You don't. Simple.

I agree. I don't think people have any right to liberty.

No, that's false and absurd. In South Korea, many people are addicted to alcohol and tobacco, but prices are dirt cheap because they are not taxed, and no one tries to stop the supply from reaching consumers.

The tobacco and alcohol industries enjoy economies of scale. Their prices are low because they depend on maximizing their market share. Tobacco sales have been declining for decades (at least in America), and if they jacked up the prices, they would scare away their new, not-yet-addicted, customers (mostly young people).

Street dealers do something similar. Newbies get freebies. Addicts pay a lot though.

But addiction is only demand. Price only rises when SUPPLY is restricted. As by prohibition.

GET IT???

Are you saying that prices don't depend on demand???

[Harmattan]

Recreational drugs are the very essence of useless and socially harmful consumerism.

Life itself is useless. Why should we restrict ourselves to useful activities?

Drug dealers get rich for doing essentially nothing.

Nothing? They do as much as any regular casher, business owner or CEO - their equivalent positions.

And more often than not, they earn less than their legal equivalents. Most street dealers earn less than the minimum legal hourly rate, work for week-ends and nights without compensation, without any pauses, very often outdoors even when there is snow or rain, etc.

Street dealer is a popular job because those guys already know the boss, they only have to ask to get a job, they share the corporate culture, they can be hired as soon as they hit 10yo, there is a daily wage, they work by night most of the time, they can chat with their friends, and there are many promotion opportunities thanks to the high turn over among managers (because they quit or because they are jailed or killed).

On a serious note, if we want to reinsert young delinquents, we need to look at the drug culture to see how they turn them into productive elements.

[Truth To Power]

But we recognize in general that people have a right to do things that aren't good for them. It's when they do things that aren't good for others that we take exception.

I don't see why the state should be allowed to prevent people from harming others, but not themselves.

Because the state exists to secure people's rights, not violate them.

If it was a few people doing stupid shit, the problems they cause would be so miniscule as to not even be worthy of attention. The trouble is that every idiot and his mother thinks in exactly the same way. And when you have millions of people harming themselves, then you have a very serious problem.

But not as serious as the problem you have when the state tries to stop them. 80 years ago, the American people were intelligent enough to understand that Prohibition was a massive failure, and could never succeed. Today, they are not intelligent enough to understand that.

Same as any company.

Marketing is also economically and sociall harmful. Just look at the obesity crisis we have in America now.

Obesity is not caused by marketing, sorry. It is caused by people's inability to regulate their own consumption under conditions of abundance. It used to be that only rich people could afford to become obese, and it is self-evident and indisputable that it had nothing to do with marketing. Now, in rich countries, anyone can afford to become obese. As one prospective immigrant to the USA put it, "I just want to live in a country where the poor people are fat."

Creating demand for things that are not at all necessary is inherently wasteful.

The ultimate purpose of all economic activity is to enable consumption. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.

It's absurd to claim that drug dealers can control what people want, or that they can control the means of satisfying their desire. It is GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION that controls the means of satisfying their wants, not the dealers.

No it's not.

Yes, it most certainly and indisputably is.

Addictive drugs are addictive.

You don't say....

A person who is not addicted to cocaine will not spend anywhere near as much money on it as a person who is.

You mean, is not willing to? By that "logic," food must be astronomically expensive, because starving people are willing to pay so much for it.

You are talking utter rubbish with no basis in economics.

Drug dealers know this, and often offer freebies to new buyers in order to get them addicted.

Dealers offer freebies to get new users addicted because PROHIBITION makes their profit margin so high, and the new user can trust that a dealer who gives them freebies is not an undercover cop, so he becomes a captive market. Purveyors of legal addictive substances don't do that, because their profit margin can't justify it, and their market is not captive: unlike with prohibited drugs, consumers have no reason to be afraid of going to another supplier. It is therefore PROHIBITION and ONLY prohibition that makes it profitable for dealers to offer freebies to get new users addicted.

HELLO???

It is GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION that controls the means of satisfying their wants, not the dealers.

It's obviously both.

No, it is not.

The dealers set the prices,

Utter garbage. Dealers charge what the market will bear, and not a cent more. They can't. Price is set at the intersection of demand with SUPPLY. Because you are committed to believing the false proposition that prohibition is not the problem, you cannot permit yourself to know the fact that high drug prices are caused by the restrictive effect of prohibition on supply.

and the government makes such transactions illegal.

Reducing supply and increasing price.

No, landowners and banksters take far more from society, and contribute less.

So?

So smarten up, and focus on a real problem.

The point is, things are not as simple as you think.

Nah, I'm pretty sure things are actually much simpler than most people think.

Wrong. Most people are like you: they have such a simplistic view of drug use that they can't understand why prohibition is the problem, not the solution.

You either think people have rights to liberty or you don't. You don't. Simple.

I agree. I don't think people have any right to liberty.

Well, at least we know what assumption informs your incorrect opinions.

No, that's false and absurd. In South Korea, many people are addicted to alcohol and tobacco, but prices are dirt cheap because they are not taxed, and no one tries to stop the supply from reaching consumers.

The tobacco and alcohol industries enjoy economies of scale.

LOL! So do drug dealers. Ever see "Breaking Bad"? Their costs are all about prohibition, not production.

Their prices are low because they depend on maximizing their market share.

GARBAGE. Their prices are low because they have to compete with other producers WHO ARE FREE TO COMPETE WITH THEM for a share of a finite and not very elastic market. Supply is not restricted by prohibition, so price descends to near production cost. You just don't know enough economics to understand why that has to happen in an open market, and why prohibition prevents it from happening.

Tobacco sales have been declining for decades (at least in America), and if they jacked up the prices, they would scare away their new, not-yet-addicted, customers (mostly young people).

GARBAGE. Any producer who jacked up their prices would simply see their EXISTING customers go to someone else. Same as drug dealers.

Street dealers do something similar. Newbies get freebies. Addicts pay a lot though.

GARBAGE, as already proved. Alcohol and tobacco addicts in South Korea can get their drugs dirt cheap because there is no prohibition restricting supply.

But addiction is only demand. Price only rises when SUPPLY is restricted. As by prohibition.

GET IT???

Are you saying that prices don't depend on demand??? :?:

I am stating the fact that they are determined by the intersection of demand with SUPPLY. It is YOU who are claiming that reducing supply through prohibition does not raise prices.

Simple question: water is necessary to life, more necessary than drugs are to an addict, yet its price is microscopic. Why? If DEMAND is what determines price, why is water so cheap?

Such a mystery.

To you, that is...

[Saeko]

Because the state exists to secure people's rights, not violate them.

I disagree. The state exists to ensure its own survival.

But not as serious as the problem you have when the state tries to stop them. 80 years ago, the American people were intelligent enough to understand that Prohibition was a massive failure, and could never succeed. Today, they are not intelligent enough to understand that.

Prohibition was no failure. Sure, it led to the rise of organized crime in an age where law enforcement did not know how to deal with organized crime. They do nowadays though. And despite the fact that cocaine, for example, is much more addictive than alcohol, more people drink alcohol on a daily basis than use cocaine. Note, alcohol is legal, cocaine is not. The war on drugs has been very successful.

Obesity is not caused by marketing, sorry. It is caused by people's inability to regulate their own consumption under conditions of abundance. It used to be that only rich people could afford to become obese, and it is self-evident and indisputable that it had nothing to do with marketing. Now, in rich countries, anyone can afford to become obese. As one prospective immigrant to the USA put it, "I just want to live in a country where the poor people are fat."

Partly caused by marketing. But if you think that's true, then what makes you think that the same doesn't hold for addictive drugs???

The ultimate purpose of all economic activity is to enable consumption. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.

The ultimate purpose of all economic activity is survival. Consumption is a necessary component of that, but not the end.

It's absurd to claim that drug dealers can control what people want, or that they can control the means of satisfying their desire. It is GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION that controls the means of satisfying their wants, not the dealers.

No it's not.

Yes, it most certainly and indisputably is.

Addictive drugs are addictive.

You don't say....

A person who is not addicted to cocaine will not spend anywhere near as much money on it as a person who is.

You mean, is not willing to? By that "logic," food must be astronomically expensive, because starving people are willing to pay so much for it.

You are talking utter rubbish with no basis in economics.

Food would be astronomically expensive, and has the potential to be. However, if farmers all got together to hike up the price of food, people would not simply switch to an alternative (because there is none) or merely passively accept the price that "the market" has decided on. They would riot, get together, murder all the farmers, and steal all the food.

Low food prices are a consequence of politics, not economics. Farm subsidies exist because farmers have to sell their products for so cheap that they can't afford to live on their meager incomes.

Dealers offer freebies to get new users addicted because PROHIBITION makes their profit margin so high, and the new user can trust that a dealer who gives them freebies is not an undercover cop, so he becomes a captive market. Purveyors of legal addictive substances don't do that, because their profit margin can't justify it, and their market is not captive: unlike with prohibited drugs, consumers have no reason to be afraid of going to another supplier. It is therefore PROHIBITION and ONLY prohibition that makes it profitable for dealers to offer freebies to get new users addicted.

Garbage. You just said that prohibition reduces supply by raising the costs of production. If drug dealers are actually making more money through prohibition, then I'd say it's quite a miracle that the tobacco and alcohol industries are not lobbying to get their products prohibitted.

It is GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION that controls the means of satisfying their wants, not the dealers.

It's obviously both.

No, it is not.

Yes it is.

Utter garbage. Dealers charge what the market will bear, and not a cent more. They can't. Price is set at the intersection of demand with SUPPLY. Because you are committed to believing the false proposition that prohibition is not the problem, you cannot permit yourself to know the fact that high drug prices are caused by the restrictive effect of prohibition on supply.

Absolute detritus. I do not believe that economics is as simple as "price is set at the intersection of demand and supply". For one thing, you yourself just said that street dealers have a capitve market (unlike legal vendors, supposedly). I'm sorry, but either street dealers have capitve markets due to prohibition, or they are in an "open market" in which case prohibition is not the cause of high drug prices. You can't have it both ways.

Reducing supply and increasing price.

That's a good thing. It makes it harder for people to get dangerous addictive poison. Hurray for the Wisdom of the State.

Wrong. Most people are like you: they have such a simplistic view of drug use that they can't understand why prohibition is the problem, not the solution.

Incorrect. Prohibition is a solution. You might argue that it's a poor one, but it is drug use that is the problem. Once upon a time, all of the drugs that are now illegal were legal, i.e. just take meth as an example. They were outlawed because they decimated whole areas by plunging them into crime.

LOL! So do drug dealers. Ever see "Breaking Bad"? Their costs are all about prohibition, not production.

If you've seen Breaking Bad, then surely you've seen the part where Walt says "Corner the market, raise the price".

GARBAGE. Their prices are low because they have to compete with other producers WHO ARE FREE TO COMPETE WITH THEM for a share of a finite and not very elastic market. Supply is not restricted by prohibition, so price descends to near production cost. You just don't know enough economics to understand why that has to happen in an open market, and why prohibition prevents it from happening.

WASTE. And street dealers don't have competition? Top lel.

In your own words:

GARBAGE. Any producer who jacked up their prices would simply see their EXISTING customers go to someone else. Same as drug dealers.

Basura! But that's what I said.

GARBAGE, as already proved. Alcohol and tobacco addicts in South Korea can get their drugs dirt cheap because there is no prohibition restricting supply.

Rubbish. A mere re-statement of your proposition, is no proof of that proposition.

But addiction is only demand. Price only rises when SUPPLY is restricted. As by prohibition. GET IT???

I am stating the fact that they are determined by the intersection of demand with SUPPLY. It is YOU who are claiming that reducing supply through prohibition does not raise prices.

Simple question: water is necessary to life, more necessary than drugs are to an addict, yet its price is microscopic. Why? If DEMAND is what determines price, why is water so cheap?

Such a mystery.

To you, that is...

Water is cheap because there is a state-granted monopoly to water companies, and the state ensures that prices remain low. Such a mystery. Much question. Wow.

[Harmattan]

Their prices are low because they have to compete with other producers WHO ARE FREE TO COMPETE WITH THEM for a share of a finite and not very elastic market. Supply is not restricted by prohibition, so price descends to near production cost. You just don't know enough economics to understand why that has to happen in an open market, and why prohibition prevents it from happening.

Prohibition does not restrict supply, it restricts demand: when a supplier is downed it takes less than three months, sometimes less than a week, for the situation to come back to normal.

The drugs market is entirely demand-driven. Drugs are expensive not because of high profits, but because of high retail costs, mostly because you must not use mass models and because of illegality. Imagine producing in Columbia and shipping to the USA with many countries involved, plenty of loads (not large cargoes but many small loads through diverse means with as much people to pay), various police forces totaling large seizures (10% - 90% depending on the trade and year), plenty of officials and cops to bribe, plenty of little hands, high security measures. And then consider street retail: you need watchers, 24/7 seller pairs, security forces, money launderers, bribed cops, lawyers, indemnities for prisoners, clean expendable vehicles, clean expendable phones, weapons, etc. And all of those many little hands takes plenty of middle management.

Manufacturing is cheap but on the retail side it's the anti-Wal-Mart. Also this is a very volatile market, where roads, products, constrains, business models, monetary change rates and partners change rapidly. As a result profits vary a lot from one year to another and this requires huge reserves of cash and financial covers, which is expensive.

Low food prices are a consequence of politics, not economics. Farm subsidies exist because farmers have to sell their products for so cheap that they can't afford to live on their meager incomes.

80%-90% of the cereal production is used by cattle, so the cereal offer is actually very elastic: if tomorrow prices were to rise, people would simply eat slightly less meat and this would cause a lot more cereals to reach the market. As for subsides, aren't they targeted at small producers and aren't they facing a cheaper foreign production?

You just said that prohibition reduces supply by raising the costs of production. If drug dealers are actually making more money through prohibition, then I'd say it's quite a miracle that the tobacco and alcohol industries are not lobbying to get their products prohibitted.

You know what's better than earning a lot of money for five years? Earning a lot of money legally, for your whole life, with the certainty that your children will earn a lot of money too.

Besides prohibition DOES reduce consumption and significantly increases production and distribution costs.

[Truth To Power]

Because the state exists to secure people's rights, not violate them.

I disagree. The state exists to ensure its own survival.

No, that's objectively false and absurd. The state is not an entity with will or consciousness. It is an institution created and maintained by people, and if it doesn't do its job, they change it or get rid of it.

But not as serious as the problem you have when the state tries to stop them. 80 years ago, the American people were intelligent enough to understand that Prohibition was a massive failure, and could never succeed. Today, they are not intelligent enough to understand that.

Prohibition was no failure.

It was a massive and catastrophic failure, and that fact is known to everyone who is familiar with the facts.

Sure, it led to the rise of organized crime in an age where law enforcement did not know how to deal with organized crime. They do nowadays though.

? I'll assume that was a joke, as no one over the age of 10 could possibly believe it.

And despite the fact that cocaine, for example, is much more addictive than alcohol, more people drink alcohol on a daily basis than use cocaine.

Because cocaine is much more dangerous, and people (with some notable exceptions) are not stupid.

Note, alcohol is legal, cocaine is not. The war on drugs has been very successful.

At aggravating the problem of addiction by adding on crime.

Obesity is not caused by marketing, sorry. It is caused by people's inability to regulate their own consumption under conditions of abundance. It used to be that only rich people could afford to become obese, and it is self-evident and indisputable that it had nothing to do with marketing. Now, in rich countries, anyone can afford to become obese. As one prospective immigrant to the USA put it, "I just want to live in a country where the poor people are fat."

Partly caused by marketing. But if you think that's true, then what makes you think that the same doesn't hold for addictive drugs???

It does, and any other addiction, too. People smoke tobacco. People eat junk food. People drink alcohol. People impoverish themselves by gambling. When I went to university, lots of people flunked out of first year because they played bridge instead of studying. In Germany, thousands of students flunked out when "Settlers of Catan" was a craze there, because they played Settlers instead of studying. So what? As long as they don't drive drunk, and their taxes pay for the extra costs they impose on society, what gives YOU the right to control THEIR addictive behavior?

The ultimate purpose of all economic activity is to enable consumption. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.

The ultimate purpose of all economic activity is survival.

Flat wrong.

Consumption is a necessary component of that, but not the end.

Nope. Consumption is the ultimate purpose of all economic activity, and many kinds of consumption do NOT contribute to survival, quite the contrary.

It's absurd to claim that drug dealers can control what people want, or that they can control the means of satisfying their desire. It is GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION that controls the means of satisfying their wants, not the dealers.

A person who is not addicted to cocaine will not spend anywhere near as much money on it as a person who is.

You mean, is not willing to? By that "logic," food must be astronomically expensive, because starving people are willing to pay so much for it.

You are talking utter rubbish with no basis in economics.

Food would be astronomically expensive, and has the potential to be.

Nope. Flat wrong AGAIN. Not as long as it isn't prohibited. It's too easy to add to the supply if the price gets too high.

However, if farmers all got together to hike up the price of food, people would not simply switch to an alternative (because there is none)

Wrong again. Farmers are far from being the only source of food. They are just the CHEAPEST source, because that is their profession.

or merely passively accept the price that "the market" has decided on. They would riot, get together, murder all the farmers, and steal all the food.

No, they would not, because they are not stupid. Only deeply stupid people -- socialists, communists, etc. -- seek to kill those who provide them with necessities of life.

Low food prices are a consequence of politics, not economics.

Flat false. Food was cheap before there was ever any such thing as politics, and it is cheap in places where politics is irrelevant.

Farm subsidies exist because farmers have to sell their products for so cheap that they can't afford to live on their meager incomes.

Flat false. Farm subsidies exist for one reason and one reason only: to give unearned wealth to the owners of farmland at taxpayer expense.

Dealers offer freebies to get new users addicted because PROHIBITION makes their profit margin so high, and the new user can trust that a dealer who gives them freebies is not an undercover cop, so he becomes a captive market. Purveyors of legal addictive substances don't do that, because their profit margin can't justify it, and their market is not captive: unlike with prohibited drugs, consumers have no reason to be afraid of going to another supplier. It is therefore PROHIBITION and ONLY prohibition that makes it profitable for dealers to offer freebies to get new users addicted.

Garbage.

Fact which you cannot refute.

You just said that prohibition reduces supply by raising the costs of production.

No, I did not. I said that prohibition's attempt to reduce supply raises prices and costs of production.

If drug dealers are actually making more money through prohibition,

That is indisputable.

then I'd say it's quite a miracle that the tobacco and alcohol industries are not lobbying to get their products prohibited.

<sigh> Which just proves how little you know of business and economics. If their products were prohibited, they would be in competition with ruthless, violent killers, like other purveyors of illegal drugs, not with fellow businessmen. Dodging bullets is not on their agenda.

It is GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION that controls the means of satisfying their wants, not the dealers.

It's obviously both.

No, it is not.

Yes it is.

NO, it is NOT.

Utter garbage. Dealers charge what the market will bear, and not a cent more. They can't. Price is set at the intersection of demand with SUPPLY. Because you are committed to believing the false proposition that prohibition is not the problem, you cannot permit yourself to know the fact that high drug prices are caused by the restrictive effect of prohibition on supply.

Absolute detritus.

Fact.

I do not believe that economics is as simple as "price is set at the intersection of demand and supply".

There is more to economics than that, but there is no economics WITHOUT that.

For one thing, you yourself just said that street dealers have a capitve market (unlike legal vendors, supposedly).

No. I identified the fact that a new addict is effectively a captive market for his supplier until he acquires the street smarts to figure out who is trustworthy.

I'm sorry, but either street dealers have capitve markets due to prohibition,

It's a temporary situation that decays as the new user becomes a more experienced and sophisticated user.

or they are in an "open market" in which case prohibition is not the cause of high drug prices.

It is definitely not an open market, as you know very well.

You can't have it both ways.

Your strawman is not an argument, sorry.

Reducing supply and increasing price.

That's a good thing. It makes it harder for people to get dangerous addictive poison. Hurray for the Wisdom of the State.

It's not a good thing, because it creates a profit opportunity for criminals and places the addict in an even worse position than if he could get his dangerous addictive poison for a lower price, and in known purity and strength.

Your claims continue to be anti-logical garbage.

Wrong. Most people are like you: they have such a simplistic view of drug use that they can't understand why prohibition is the problem, not the solution.

Incorrect. Prohibition is a solution.

No, I am objectively correct, and you are objectively wrong, as every single large-scale, scientifically credible study of drug policy has found. Every single one, starting with the British India Hemp Drugs Commission of 1894.

You might argue that it's a poor one, but it is drug use that is the problem.

No, it is not. Your claims are false and absurd. Portugal legalized all drugs, and their drug problem has largely gone away.

Once upon a time, all of the drugs that are now illegal were legal,

And the one that caused by far the most problems was... alcohol.

i.e. just take meth as an example. They were outlawed because they decimated whole areas by plunging them into crime.

No, they most certainly did not.

LOL! So do drug dealers. Ever see "Breaking Bad"? Their costs are all about prohibition, not production.

If you've seen Breaking Bad, then surely you've seen the part where Walt says "Corner the market, raise the price".

The price was already high enough to attract criminals. And you saw what happened when they tried to corner the market, right?

GARBAGE. Their prices are low because they have to compete with other producers WHO ARE FREE TO COMPETE WITH THEM for a share of a finite and not very elastic market. Supply is not restricted by prohibition, so price descends to near production cost. You just don't know enough economics to understand why that has to happen in an open market, and why prohibition prevents it from happening.

And street dealers don't have competition?

Street dealers have competition for the BUYERS. They DON'T have to compete with actual pharmaceutical companies, who could undercut them by an order of magnitude.

In your own words:

Which you would do well to heed...

GARBAGE. Any producer who jacked up their prices would simply see their EXISTING customers go to someone else. Same as drug dealers.

Basura! But that's what I said.

No, you did not.

GARBAGE, as already proved. Alcohol and tobacco addicts in South Korea can get their drugs dirt cheap because there is no prohibition restricting supply.

Rubbish.

Fact which you have offered no evidence whatever against.

A mere re-statement of your proposition, is no proof of that proposition.

<yawn> Logic isn't exactly your strong suit, is it?

Restatement of a fact that refutes the opposing claim is just as much proof that that claim is false the second time as the first time.

But addiction is only demand. Price only rises when SUPPLY is restricted. As by prohibition. GET IT???

I am stating the fact that they are determined by the intersection of demand with SUPPLY. It is YOU who are claiming that reducing supply through prohibition does not raise prices.

Simple question: water is necessary to life, more necessary than drugs are to an addict, yet its price is microscopic. Why? If DEMAND is what determines price, why is water so cheap?

Such a mystery.

To you, that is...

Water is cheap because there is a state-granted monopoly to water companies,

Oh, really? So before there were any state-granted monopolies, water was expensive...?

ROTFLMAO!!!

Stick a fork in yourself, chum. You are done.

and the state ensures that prices remain low.

False and absurd.

Such a mystery. Much question. Wow.

I'm actually arguing with someone who thinks it is a state monopoly on water that makes it cheap.

Incredible.

What do you think all the fish do, with no state monopoly to make their water cheap enough for them to afford, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

ROTFLMAO!!!

[Lexington]

I grew up with a parent with alcoholism and much of my childhood involved first being terrified of going home from school to her, then once I got older, fighting her to the floor whenever she went into one of her screaming rages and crying and screaming at each other; her father didn't even live to see me born because his liver basically exploded.

I've been through detoxes multiple times after long binges - my demon is opiates. I've gone through withdrawal without the benefit of medical help after long binges and I cannot describe to you the kind of pain and terror that one experiences during withdrawal.

The reason I bring this all up is to describe why prohibition doesn't work: I know, having grown up with it, and having experienced it, the kind of pain that using drugs does, to me and the people I love. I can run cost-benefit analyses on these - I was an economics major, I work in finance for Christ's sake, this is what I do for a living. I do it anyway because I'm an addict, why the fuck would I care about a prison sentence?

I'm also (I think) a high-functioning, clever, decent person. At least I try to be. My experiences with other addicts confirms the same: we are mostly decent people with a health problem. Some are not decent people, but so are most people. This should be treated as a health problem. For me, I have the fortune of having good insurance and a good family - my mother eventually stopped drinking and became a wonderful, beautiful person again. Many do not have these benefits and for them I am heartbroken and have the utmost sympathy because I know their pain personally.

If you're wondering what my current state is: I take a shot in the ass once a month of something called vivitrol.