4 ms·

You need to learn some basic economics. (First question: Cocaine, heroin, opium, alcohol and marihuana used to be legal in the UK (and most other places), there

by fgf 16y ago

You need to learn some basic economics. (First question: Cocaine, heroin, opium, alcohol and marihuana used to be legal in the UK (and most other places), there was nothing like todays gang violence. Why? Second question: Why did crime increase during prohibition?) http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/organized_crime1_final.html http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/organized_crime1_final.html

ErrantX 16y ago
I hate to be glib but my economics is pretty good. Would you care to explain what you mean?
- fgf 16y ago
  Prohibition of a substance people wants leads to illegal distribution. Illegal distributors can not use private property protection normally used by those who distribute legal goods. So bootleggers, crack dealers etc. kill each other to enforce contracts, take markets and steal each others stuff. This is why prohibition causes crime. You will have a very hard time finding any informed participant in the debate over legalization contesting this fact.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Prohibition of a substance people wants leads to illegal distribution.... Most of your post I am entirely in agreement with. The problem is thus: Currently we are discussing cannabis legalization. I for one could see myself being convinced, and even supporting, it's legalization at some point (certainly my attitude has changed in the last 12 months!). However, in realistic terms, that is not going to reduce overall crime related to the illegal drugs trade - dealers will simply shift focus to other drugs (I admit that there could well me a small reduction where dealers find it too much hassle etc.). For your scenario to take affect all drugs have to be legalized. I cannot see a reasonable argument for making Heroin, a highly addictive and dangerous substance, legal. I'm fairly sure that many people behind the legalization of cannabis would feel the same way. And even then I feel the problem would not go away - at least in the long term. Illegal markets will always exist. Sure we can keep legalizing them - but at what point does the danger become too great, at what point does designer drug X become too dangerous? I posit that such a point will come (given rampant legalization) and as such the illegal trade will continue to flourish. Essentially what you are arguing is the idea of shifting poisonous assets (crime) elsewhere to allow positive gains in certain areas (cannabis industry/use). Which is fine but a) you have to be aware of where those poisonous assets are going to (can you control them?) and b) those assets still exist and you have to deal with them at some point. That is economics :) With regards your other post, which you deleted, I can't (and wouldn't anyway!) down mod your replies [for obvious reasons] but I suspect the reason was because of the first comment - the tone of which is usually frowned on here.
    - fgf 16y ago
      "So has the removal of prohibition removed problems due to trading in illegal substances? Answer, by your own admission, is no :)" "For your scenario to take affect all drugs have to be legalized." "I feel the problem would not go away" You seem to assume that the amount of illegal "effort" to supply illegal substances (with the violence that follows from those activities) has and will remain constant trough prohibition/legalization of some of the most common drugs (alcohol and cannabis). This contradicts basic economic theory. If there is a bigger demand (for illegal substances) there will be a bigger supply (of illegally distributed illegal substances) if an increase in this supply requires organized criminal effort (involving, among other things, violence) prohibition will lead to more crime. (It could also decrease other forms of crime but thats not the matter here.) "Essentially what you are arguing is the idea of shifting poisonous assets (crime) elsewhere to allow positive gains in certain areas (cannabis industry/use)." I'm not arguing for anything, I'm trying to get the point above across. There are cost and benefits to prohibition of any substance. One of the most widely recognized costs (this is literally the first time I have hard it questioned) is that it causes organized crime.
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        The only thing you have ignored is the fact that individual drugs are not part of discrete markets. If a dealer loses a revenue stream in cannabis why does that mean he will not continue (and start) in other areas. While we are on economics there is another issue you've ignored. The fact that legalization removes a revenue stream for the drugs gangs. They will want to expand markets - that means new drugs and new problems. If they cannot supply cannabis why is it illogical to imagine they would not expand the heroin/coke markets. If you want some "insider info"; we did a couple of investigations into drugs gangs last year. There is already a lot of market control within the gang infrastructure - they use fairly sophisticated market strategy to expand usage of underperforming drugs in an area for example.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

by fgf 16y ago

ErrantX 16y ago

I hate to be glib but my economics is pretty good. Would you care to explain what you mean?

fgf 16y ago
Prohibition of a substance people wants leads to illegal distribution. Illegal distributors can not use private property protection normally used by those who distribute legal goods. So bootleggers, crack dealers etc. kill each other to enforce contracts, take markets and steal each others stuff. This is why prohibition causes crime. You will have a very hard time finding any informed participant in the debate over legalization contesting this fact.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Prohibition of a substance people wants leads to illegal distribution.... Most of your post I am entirely in agreement with. The problem is thus: Currently we are discussing cannabis legalization. I for one could see myself being convinced, and even supporting, it's legalization at some point (certainly my attitude has changed in the last 12 months!). However, in realistic terms, that is not going to reduce overall crime related to the illegal drugs trade - dealers will simply shift focus to other drugs (I admit that there could well me a small reduction where dealers find it too much hassle etc.). For your scenario to take affect all drugs have to be legalized. I cannot see a reasonable argument for making Heroin, a highly addictive and dangerous substance, legal. I'm fairly sure that many people behind the legalization of cannabis would feel the same way. And even then I feel the problem would not go away - at least in the long term. Illegal markets will always exist. Sure we can keep legalizing them - but at what point does the danger become too great, at what point does designer drug X become too dangerous? I posit that such a point will come (given rampant legalization) and as such the illegal trade will continue to flourish. Essentially what you are arguing is the idea of shifting poisonous assets (crime) elsewhere to allow positive gains in certain areas (cannabis industry/use). Which is fine but a) you have to be aware of where those poisonous assets are going to (can you control them?) and b) those assets still exist and you have to deal with them at some point. That is economics :) With regards your other post, which you deleted, I can't (and wouldn't anyway!) down mod your replies [for obvious reasons] but I suspect the reason was because of the first comment - the tone of which is usually frowned on here.
  - fgf 16y ago
    "So has the removal of prohibition removed problems due to trading in illegal substances? Answer, by your own admission, is no :)" "For your scenario to take affect all drugs have to be legalized." "I feel the problem would not go away" You seem to assume that the amount of illegal "effort" to supply illegal substances (with the violence that follows from those activities) has and will remain constant trough prohibition/legalization of some of the most common drugs (alcohol and cannabis). This contradicts basic economic theory. If there is a bigger demand (for illegal substances) there will be a bigger supply (of illegally distributed illegal substances) if an increase in this supply requires organized criminal effort (involving, among other things, violence) prohibition will lead to more crime. (It could also decrease other forms of crime but thats not the matter here.) "Essentially what you are arguing is the idea of shifting poisonous assets (crime) elsewhere to allow positive gains in certain areas (cannabis industry/use)." I'm not arguing for anything, I'm trying to get the point above across. There are cost and benefits to prohibition of any substance. One of the most widely recognized costs (this is literally the first time I have hard it questioned) is that it causes organized crime.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      The only thing you have ignored is the fact that individual drugs are not part of discrete markets. If a dealer loses a revenue stream in cannabis why does that mean he will not continue (and start) in other areas. While we are on economics there is another issue you've ignored. The fact that legalization removes a revenue stream for the drugs gangs. They will want to expand markets - that means new drugs and new problems. If they cannot supply cannabis why is it illogical to imagine they would not expand the heroin/coke markets. If you want some "insider info"; we did a couple of investigations into drugs gangs last year. There is already a lot of market control within the gang infrastructure - they use fairly sophisticated market strategy to expand usage of underperforming drugs in an area for example.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]