4 ms·

"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 a

by 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.

by fgf 16y ago

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.