13 ms·

That's the problem with wars - they lead to arms races.... The sooner western governments start looking into the development of safer recreational drugs (ie no

That's the problem with wars - they lead to arms races.... The sooner western governments start looking into the development of safer recreational drugs (ie no worse than alcohol, and preferably with low dependence), the sooner we can get rid of drug lords, drug wars, and all the killing and suffering that goes with it. Stupid stupid stupid....

anonman1 16y ago
"O brave new world that has such people in it. Let's start at once."
shin_lao 16y ago
The problem is that you don't want more recreational drugs in your country. Alcohol is already a problem, so is tobacco, do we really want to add more? It's naive to believe that legalizing drugs will damage drug lords. They will continue to sell different kind of drugs, because whatever you legalize, there's going to be a market for different kind of substances; and they will simply flood the market with cheaper, not health-approved, substances. An example of it is illegal cigarettes smuggling caused by the rise of cigarettes prices. There is an example of a country devastated by "soft" drugs, it's Djibouti (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djibouti http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djibouti) with Khat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat). You really don't want your whole workforce getting just enough to buy Khat and spend the day stoned or do you? No silver bullet.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  Why would the entire workplace suddenly decide to start using drugs? Its not like employers can't detect stoned employees.
  - shin_lao 16y ago
    You don't do it at work, you do it after. Your life purpose becomes "being able to pay for enough Khat". The story there is that the man that managed Djibouti's port forbid the usage of Khat for his workers and couldn't walk around without his body guards.
    - sailormoon 16y ago
      I don't believe that for a second. Most people I know can get any drugs they want, and yet they're not a bunch of drugged up crazies, just like most adults can buy alcohol whenever they want, and most are not alcoholics. Let people make their own decisions.
    - stretchwithme 16y ago
      If people can use drugs at home and escape detection by their employer, how is it the employer you mentioned is able to enforce his rules? The United States State department reports "Penalties for possessing, using, or trafficking in illegal drugs in Djibouti are severe, and convicted offenders can expect long jail sentences and heavy fines." http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1101.html http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1101.html So severe penalties for drug use don't seem to work in your example. And they don't work in prisons in the US, either drug use runs wild and the state has complete control over the lives of the inhabitants.
- roel_v 16y ago
  /It's naive to believe that legalizing drugs will damage drug lords./ This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in weeks on the internet, and believe me, that counts for something. How can they flood the market with cheaper substances? There is little reason a kilo of cocaine should cost much more than a kilo of coffee (ok maybe 5 times more than that because of lower yield per square cultivated meter). Still, the profit in the drug trade comes directly from it being illegal - i.e. the premium that users pay is a risk premium for the producers, traffickers, whole-sellers and retailers. Making production legal would not only make the product much much much safer but it would also reduce profit margins by so much that the people currently employed in this economic sector would be pushed out of the business by regular pharma / foodstuffs companies almost overnight. Along with it, the corruption, assassination and many of the other externalities would disappear, at the same speed.
  - shin_lao 16y ago
    Err... They would simply use their billions to go legit? No damage, just making their business legal. If I may, let's say there's no more illegal activity related to drug. Would that solve violence? Not really, life of crime is chosen because you don't have options. Only the top drug lords are wealthy with drugs, read Freakonomics for more info about it. There was an interview from a crime lord who said something along the lines "when people have the possibility to get real jobs, it's very difficult for me to hire". Drug is one end of the problem, it's also a health problem in itself. But making drug legal won't solve much of violence and misery in the world.
    - roel_v 16y ago
      Of course not. The skills and infrastructure needed to run criminal organization are vastly different from those to run a business in a regular market. Apart from that, I don't see the problem with former drug lords turning into 'regular' companies, as long as they stick to the rules of the 'regular' market, which they'll have to if they want to succeed. It's not like Proctor & Gamble goes around beating people up to maintain their edge in the diaper business. Secondly, it will of course not solve all violence. But it will at least solve the assassinations (and the collateral damage that comes with it) that directly stem from doing business in a lawless world (there is no way to enforce contracts in the underground except by violence and reputation) and it will take away much of the necessity to commit petty crime by small time criminal junkies. Depending on which country you look at, 20 to 60+ % of prison populations across the world are incarcerated for drug-related offenses. Are you honestly going to argue that all of those people will switch to robbing banks or other violent crimes when drugs are legalized? There are basically three ways to illegally make money nowadays: drugs, violent crimes (including property crimes which may not be 'violent' in the standard definition such as night-time burglary) and fraud (white collar but also smuggling cigarettes etc.) Many of the people who are now in the drug business will simply not have the opportunity to switch into a different field even if they wanted to! And yes I did read Freakonomics, I don't know what your point is there. While an entertaining read, a quote from a single guy who may or may not be the 'drug lord' he's claiming hardly makes for a convincing argument to defend current drug policy on. It's quite obvious that 'solving' poverty (whatever that may mean, considering that 'poverty' is such an ill-defined concept) is a good way to eliminate crime. It's not something that can be reached with policy though, at least not in the near term. Drug policy is much more contained and within reach of the legislature (by definition even), if it weren't for all the people who oppose drugs on ideological and/or mis-informed factual grounds.
- huherto 16y ago
  It will impact drug lords. They will probably move to other illegal activities and violence is likely to increase. Still it will eliminate a big incentive for people to choose a criminal life. This is really becoming very serious. Today, we woke up by the noise of gun fire. They killed a police officer a few blocks from my house. A LOT of innocent people are being killed everyday. My 17 year old nephew and his dad were killed last week. And every week something new happens.
stretchwithme 16y ago
legalization itself would make drugs safer. half the problem with illegal drug safety is the inconsistency in potency. But when products are legal, brands develop that have an interest in delivering quality. And they have bank accounts. That guy in the alley really doesn't. If I remember correctly, I think there's even a chemical you can add to cocaine that prevents overdose. No real incentive to do that when its an illegal product.
- zokier 16y ago
  A living customer is far more profitable even to drug lords than a dead one.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Yes, but I don't think drug lords have a problem with the supply of those.
    - stretchwithme 16y ago
      They can always blame someone in their supply chain. And I'm pretty sure returns aren't permitted anyway. And they have guns and are on drugs and could even report you to the police. The normal incentives for ensuring quality simply are not there. I don't think they know about Six Sigma.
  - chc 16y ago
    Drug lords are much like the big telecom companies in the US: They do want customers, but their product has steady enough growth that they don't mind burning a few customers if it's convenient to their business model. (See, for example, all the hate AT&T has gotten over its handling of iPhone customers.)
- hugh3 16y ago
  Might it not be better to make drugs less safe? Kill off all the users, and there's no market. What we should do is make it illegal for hospitals to treat overdoses.
ahn 16y ago
>That's the problem with wars - they lead to arms races.... You were high when you wrote that, right?
zalew 16y ago
This doc is worth watching http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/if-drugs-were-legal/ http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/if-drugs-were-legal/ (the version on torrents has an after-movie discussion panel). It takes a shot on predicting the pros and cons of drug legalization, with fictional scenarios (including commercially developed recreational drugs you wrote about) and comments.

anonman1 16y ago

"O brave new world that has such people in it. Let's start at once."

shin_lao 16y ago

The problem is that you don't want more recreational drugs in your country. Alcohol is already a problem, so is tobacco, do we really want to add more? It's naive to believe that legalizing drugs will damage drug lords. They will continue to sell different kind of drugs, because whatever you legalize, there's going to be a market for different kind of substances; and they will simply flood the market with cheaper, not health-approved, substances. An example of it is illegal cigarettes smuggling caused by the rise of cigarettes prices. There is an example of a country devastated by "soft" drugs, it's Djibouti (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djibouti http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djibouti) with Khat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat). You really don't want your whole workforce getting just enough to buy Khat and spend the day stoned or do you? No silver bullet.

stretchwithme 16y ago
Why would the entire workplace suddenly decide to start using drugs? Its not like employers can't detect stoned employees.
- shin_lao 16y ago
  You don't do it at work, you do it after. Your life purpose becomes "being able to pay for enough Khat". The story there is that the man that managed Djibouti's port forbid the usage of Khat for his workers and couldn't walk around without his body guards.
  - sailormoon 16y ago
    I don't believe that for a second. Most people I know can get any drugs they want, and yet they're not a bunch of drugged up crazies, just like most adults can buy alcohol whenever they want, and most are not alcoholics. Let people make their own decisions.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    If people can use drugs at home and escape detection by their employer, how is it the employer you mentioned is able to enforce his rules? The United States State department reports "Penalties for possessing, using, or trafficking in illegal drugs in Djibouti are severe, and convicted offenders can expect long jail sentences and heavy fines." http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1101.html http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1101.html So severe penalties for drug use don't seem to work in your example. And they don't work in prisons in the US, either drug use runs wild and the state has complete control over the lives of the inhabitants.
roel_v 16y ago
/It's naive to believe that legalizing drugs will damage drug lords./ This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in weeks on the internet, and believe me, that counts for something. How can they flood the market with cheaper substances? There is little reason a kilo of cocaine should cost much more than a kilo of coffee (ok maybe 5 times more than that because of lower yield per square cultivated meter). Still, the profit in the drug trade comes directly from it being illegal - i.e. the premium that users pay is a risk premium for the producers, traffickers, whole-sellers and retailers. Making production legal would not only make the product much much much safer but it would also reduce profit margins by so much that the people currently employed in this economic sector would be pushed out of the business by regular pharma / foodstuffs companies almost overnight. Along with it, the corruption, assassination and many of the other externalities would disappear, at the same speed.
- shin_lao 16y ago
  Err... They would simply use their billions to go legit? No damage, just making their business legal. If I may, let's say there's no more illegal activity related to drug. Would that solve violence? Not really, life of crime is chosen because you don't have options. Only the top drug lords are wealthy with drugs, read Freakonomics for more info about it. There was an interview from a crime lord who said something along the lines "when people have the possibility to get real jobs, it's very difficult for me to hire". Drug is one end of the problem, it's also a health problem in itself. But making drug legal won't solve much of violence and misery in the world.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    Of course not. The skills and infrastructure needed to run criminal organization are vastly different from those to run a business in a regular market. Apart from that, I don't see the problem with former drug lords turning into 'regular' companies, as long as they stick to the rules of the 'regular' market, which they'll have to if they want to succeed. It's not like Proctor & Gamble goes around beating people up to maintain their edge in the diaper business. Secondly, it will of course not solve all violence. But it will at least solve the assassinations (and the collateral damage that comes with it) that directly stem from doing business in a lawless world (there is no way to enforce contracts in the underground except by violence and reputation) and it will take away much of the necessity to commit petty crime by small time criminal junkies. Depending on which country you look at, 20 to 60+ % of prison populations across the world are incarcerated for drug-related offenses. Are you honestly going to argue that all of those people will switch to robbing banks or other violent crimes when drugs are legalized? There are basically three ways to illegally make money nowadays: drugs, violent crimes (including property crimes which may not be 'violent' in the standard definition such as night-time burglary) and fraud (white collar but also smuggling cigarettes etc.) Many of the people who are now in the drug business will simply not have the opportunity to switch into a different field even if they wanted to! And yes I did read Freakonomics, I don't know what your point is there. While an entertaining read, a quote from a single guy who may or may not be the 'drug lord' he's claiming hardly makes for a convincing argument to defend current drug policy on. It's quite obvious that 'solving' poverty (whatever that may mean, considering that 'poverty' is such an ill-defined concept) is a good way to eliminate crime. It's not something that can be reached with policy though, at least not in the near term. Drug policy is much more contained and within reach of the legislature (by definition even), if it weren't for all the people who oppose drugs on ideological and/or mis-informed factual grounds.
huherto 16y ago
It will impact drug lords. They will probably move to other illegal activities and violence is likely to increase. Still it will eliminate a big incentive for people to choose a criminal life. This is really becoming very serious. Today, we woke up by the noise of gun fire. They killed a police officer a few blocks from my house. A LOT of innocent people are being killed everyday. My 17 year old nephew and his dad were killed last week. And every week something new happens.

stretchwithme 16y ago

legalization itself would make drugs safer. half the problem with illegal drug safety is the inconsistency in potency. But when products are legal, brands develop that have an interest in delivering quality. And they have bank accounts. That guy in the alley really doesn't. If I remember correctly, I think there's even a chemical you can add to cocaine that prevents overdose. No real incentive to do that when its an illegal product.

zokier 16y ago
A living customer is far more profitable even to drug lords than a dead one.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Yes, but I don't think drug lords have a problem with the supply of those.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    They can always blame someone in their supply chain. And I'm pretty sure returns aren't permitted anyway. And they have guns and are on drugs and could even report you to the police. The normal incentives for ensuring quality simply are not there. I don't think they know about Six Sigma.
- chc 16y ago
  Drug lords are much like the big telecom companies in the US: They do want customers, but their product has steady enough growth that they don't mind burning a few customers if it's convenient to their business model. (See, for example, all the hate AT&T has gotten over its handling of iPhone customers.)
hugh3 16y ago
Might it not be better to make drugs less safe? Kill off all the users, and there's no market. What we should do is make it illegal for hospitals to treat overdoses.

ahn 16y ago

>That's the problem with wars - they lead to arms races.... You were high when you wrote that, right?

zalew 16y ago

This doc is worth watching http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/if-drugs-were-legal/ http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/if-drugs-were-legal/ (the version on torrents has an after-movie discussion panel). It takes a shot on predicting the pros and cons of drug legalization, with fictional scenarios (including commercially developed recreational drugs you wrote about) and comments.