7 ms·

Here is my understanding on why decriminalization of drugs is beneficial. First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high ris

by mey 17y ago

Here is my understanding on why decriminalization of drugs is beneficial. First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her backyard? Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding is that it's mostly revolved around protecting/hiding illegal production, and moving the drugs to a dealer. If you eliminate that supply chain, that vector of violent activity would be cut off. Thirdly, why do people use drugs. I see three distinct reasons, recreational, escapism, addiction. The first two can easily lead to the third. The second two could be helped/resolved through rehabilitation programs, or solving the cause to need of escapism. (8-14% unemployment can't be helping). The first case, there isn't much a reason to have otherwise productive members of society be in jail. I don't believe that drugs are marked as illegal because of fear from pharmacy companies, or from paper/cotton companies. I believe it is that same reaction as prohibition, blue collar laws. Bad stuff can happen, bad stuff does happen, and government officials wish to prevent that from happening, on the immediate time line, without generally considering that the long term effects can be disastrous. One additional thing. As part of decriminalization and in addition to rehabilitation programs, the government should be watching new recreational drugs entering the market, and doing studies to determine the health risks / benefits of these fringe drugs. I seems that like sniffing glue, kids seem to assume that just because a drug has not been classified as an illegal substance, it somehow isn't dangerous, when the case is really that the government is rather slow to address anything of relevance in a timely fashion. (Except steroid abuse in MLB, and communists)

protomyth 17y ago
Some of the current drugs out there need to stay illegal. Not because they get you high, but because they are toxic. I do believe, if some form of decriminalization happens, we really need to up the penalty for crimes committed while under the influence. Maybe assume premeditation. I should point out I believe the same thing about alcohol. Killing someone while drunk should be considered premeditated.
- mey 17y ago
  A lot of things people ingest are toxic, the trick I feel is making that well known and public knowledge, not necessarily illegal. For example, the surgeon generals warning on the pack of a cigarette, or the chemical warnings on a bottle of bleach, I feel are a better way to approach the problem. Part of my attitude comes from growing up in New Hampshire. For example, if you are a consenting adult, and you are only harming yourself, then that is your prerogative. Why you don't need to wear a seatbelt if you are over 18, or a motorcycle helmet. The risk you are taking on is not against other people, like drunk driving, but mostly only to your own health. Now an effective part of that comes down to knowledge, but certain ideas can be ingrained in a society over time. Like put on a seatbelt or be thrown through the windshield like a crash test dummy.
  - rick888 17y ago
    "A lot of things people ingest are toxic, the trick I feel is making that well known and public knowledge, not necessarily illegal. For example, the surgeon generals warning on the pack of a cigarette, or the chemical warnings on a bottle of bleach, I feel are a better way to approach the problem." This still won't stop people from trying to sue companies that try to sell them something that knowingly harms them. Hell, even fast food restaurant chains have been sued in the US for making someone fat. My problem is that the same people that want drugs legalized then want the tax payers to pay for an addict to get clean. Most people aren't born addicted to drugs. You have to make the decision to start taking drugs. I have no problem allowing anyone to have the freedom to put whatever the hell the want into their body as long as it doesn't affect other people. This includes leaching off of the government. This may seem harsh. But if you take the risk you also need to be prepared for the consequences (good or bad).
    - mey 17y ago
      And if you make it illegal, aren't you paying to enforce that law, and put an offender in jail? I personally don't buy the cost argument. You do have a point that America is litigation happy, not really sure how to solve that. :)
  - 17y ago
Qz 17y ago
First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her backyard? Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding is that it's mostly revolved around protecting/hiding illegal production, and moving the drugs to a dealer. If you eliminate that supply chain, that vector of violent activity would be cut off. You've got this all mixed up. The violence is the competition. Drug violence is rarely about cartels vs cops -- more often it's cartels vs cartels and dealers vs dealers.
- kolektiv 17y ago
  Well, that's perhaps true but the broader point still stands. Legalised drugs companies don't tend to have the same violent tendencies. Glaxo-Smithkline don't tend to have violent gun battles with Bayer over who gets to supply prescription meds to a 'hood. Also, although that may be the violence most prominent in the US, there's plenty of police/army vs. drug cartel violent crime in other countries. edit: typo.
  - Qz 17y ago
    I don't disagree that legalization would reduce violence. Part of it probably comes from the fact that since what they're doing (on a large scale) is massively illegal, so using violence to compete isn't much of a leap.
    - warfangle 17y ago
      A huge part of it is by sheer nature of the black market, traditional dispute resolution is out of the question. You can't go to a lawyer and say, "This dude backed out on his deal, cheating me out of $10,000 of grass." So the only method left for many grey/black market areas is physical retaliation. Outlaw a market, and only outlaws (and their own twisted senses of justice and retribution) will thrive in the market.
  - dagw 17y ago
    Cigarettes are legal, yet there are still criminal gangs making their living out of smuggling and selling cigarettes. Unless drugs are sold without restriction and without tax there will still be a market for illegal drugs. Sure the market will be smaller and less profitable, but that might just make the gangs more violent in defending their turf as they need a larger market share to keep their current profit levels.
wtn 17y ago
It won't be beneficial for Mexico. If the US decriminalizes, the cartels will lose revenue streams and will commit more kidnappings to maintain their livelihood. The state will descend further into chaos.
- gwern 17y ago
  So, if we continue to support the gang's revenue stream, then they will wax wealthy and powerful and continue murdering with impunity. If we eliminate the gangs' revenue stream, they will commit more kidnappings, murder, and further chaos. Apparently, Mexico is screwed either way. Let's at least screw Mexico in a way which might help someone else.
- Vivtek 17y ago
  But without that firehose of ready cash, the cartels will die an unlamented death in short order. The same applies to Colombia. We need to decriminalize.
  - wtn 17y ago
    No, that's not how it works. In Mexico the cartels are more resilient than the state.
    - Vivtek 17y ago
      Then nothing we do will make any difference, and clearly the fact that we might make the cartels kidnap more is not an argument against decriminalization.

by mey 17y ago

protomyth 17y ago

Some of the current drugs out there need to stay illegal. Not because they get you high, but because they are toxic. I do believe, if some form of decriminalization happens, we really need to up the penalty for crimes committed while under the influence. Maybe assume premeditation. I should point out I believe the same thing about alcohol. Killing someone while drunk should be considered premeditated.

mey 17y ago
A lot of things people ingest are toxic, the trick I feel is making that well known and public knowledge, not necessarily illegal. For example, the surgeon generals warning on the pack of a cigarette, or the chemical warnings on a bottle of bleach, I feel are a better way to approach the problem. Part of my attitude comes from growing up in New Hampshire. For example, if you are a consenting adult, and you are only harming yourself, then that is your prerogative. Why you don't need to wear a seatbelt if you are over 18, or a motorcycle helmet. The risk you are taking on is not against other people, like drunk driving, but mostly only to your own health. Now an effective part of that comes down to knowledge, but certain ideas can be ingrained in a society over time. Like put on a seatbelt or be thrown through the windshield like a crash test dummy.
- rick888 17y ago
  "A lot of things people ingest are toxic, the trick I feel is making that well known and public knowledge, not necessarily illegal. For example, the surgeon generals warning on the pack of a cigarette, or the chemical warnings on a bottle of bleach, I feel are a better way to approach the problem." This still won't stop people from trying to sue companies that try to sell them something that knowingly harms them. Hell, even fast food restaurant chains have been sued in the US for making someone fat. My problem is that the same people that want drugs legalized then want the tax payers to pay for an addict to get clean. Most people aren't born addicted to drugs. You have to make the decision to start taking drugs. I have no problem allowing anyone to have the freedom to put whatever the hell the want into their body as long as it doesn't affect other people. This includes leaching off of the government. This may seem harsh. But if you take the risk you also need to be prepared for the consequences (good or bad).
  - mey 17y ago
    And if you make it illegal, aren't you paying to enforce that law, and put an offender in jail? I personally don't buy the cost argument. You do have a point that America is litigation happy, not really sure how to solve that. :)
- 17y ago

Qz 17y ago

First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her backyard? Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding is that it's mostly revolved around protecting/hiding illegal production, and moving the drugs to a dealer. If you eliminate that supply chain, that vector of violent activity would be cut off. You've got this all mixed up. The violence is the competition. Drug violence is rarely about cartels vs cops -- more often it's cartels vs cartels and dealers vs dealers.

kolektiv 17y ago
Well, that's perhaps true but the broader point still stands. Legalised drugs companies don't tend to have the same violent tendencies. Glaxo-Smithkline don't tend to have violent gun battles with Bayer over who gets to supply prescription meds to a 'hood. Also, although that may be the violence most prominent in the US, there's plenty of police/army vs. drug cartel violent crime in other countries. edit: typo.
- Qz 17y ago
  I don't disagree that legalization would reduce violence. Part of it probably comes from the fact that since what they're doing (on a large scale) is massively illegal, so using violence to compete isn't much of a leap.
  - warfangle 17y ago
    A huge part of it is by sheer nature of the black market, traditional dispute resolution is out of the question. You can't go to a lawyer and say, "This dude backed out on his deal, cheating me out of $10,000 of grass." So the only method left for many grey/black market areas is physical retaliation. Outlaw a market, and only outlaws (and their own twisted senses of justice and retribution) will thrive in the market.
- dagw 17y ago
  Cigarettes are legal, yet there are still criminal gangs making their living out of smuggling and selling cigarettes. Unless drugs are sold without restriction and without tax there will still be a market for illegal drugs. Sure the market will be smaller and less profitable, but that might just make the gangs more violent in defending their turf as they need a larger market share to keep their current profit levels.

wtn 17y ago

It won't be beneficial for Mexico. If the US decriminalizes, the cartels will lose revenue streams and will commit more kidnappings to maintain their livelihood. The state will descend further into chaos.

gwern 17y ago
So, if we continue to support the gang's revenue stream, then they will wax wealthy and powerful and continue murdering with impunity. If we eliminate the gangs' revenue stream, they will commit more kidnappings, murder, and further chaos. Apparently, Mexico is screwed either way. Let's at least screw Mexico in a way which might help someone else.
Vivtek 17y ago
But without that firehose of ready cash, the cartels will die an unlamented death in short order. The same applies to Colombia. We need to decriminalize.
- wtn 17y ago
  No, that's not how it works. In Mexico the cartels are more resilient than the state.
  - Vivtek 17y ago
    Then nothing we do will make any difference, and clearly the fact that we might make the cartels kidnap more is not an argument against decriminalization.