4 ms·

This is a blow for anyone wanting to 'legalize all drugs'.

theonemind 7y ago
I don't think so, except inasmuch as confirmation bias will lead anyone with an anti-legalize-drugs bias to construe this as evidence for that position. The incentives for these actions can come in part from artificially high prices. More legalization gets you more players, and could perhaps dilute the power to use the machinery of doctors, drug companies, etc. as a top-down drug pushing force. Additionally, society tends to build up immunity with exposure. You can get more irrational behaviors with highly controlled or scarce things. In the short term, introducing a lot of free/legalized drugs into an already constrained society could increase damage, but for the long term? Not such a clear picture, in my opinion. Perhaps a slow loosing to allow society to adapt. Honestly, I see very little here to make this a blow against legalizing drugs besides confirmation bias for those already against it. It also leaves out the cost of the war on drugs, which you would, in a rational analysis, need to compare against the cost/problems of legalization, as the cost/problems of the war on drugs go down. Which one costs more? Organized crime takes a serious hit with legalization, a secondary benefit. Consider Prohibition in the United States. Alcohol's a drug, actually a fairly destructive one. Why did they repeal it?
- paulddraper 7y ago
  > The incentives for these actions can come in part from artificially high prices. The incentives for these actions come from any sort of price. Plus the addictive effect on the user.
- planetzero 7y ago
  "Honestly, I see very little here to make this a blow against legalizing drugs besides confirmation bias for those already against it." I don't see Budweiser execs going to prison for selling alcohol that resulted in someone become addicted or killing someone in an accident...which is most likely killing many more people per year than any other drug. "Organized crime takes a serious hit with legalization" This one has been proven false with MJ legalization. In California, for instance, legalization has only gotten more people interested in using and then when they realize they can get it for cheaper on the illegal market, it's put many legal shops out of business. With legalization comes higher prices (and possibly shortages and the inability to get it whenever you want). As a result, it has really done nothing to curb organized crime or illegal sales. This was only my theory before it was legalized, and now it has been proven correct. I guess drug users don't really care about paying their fair share. This was from a year ago, but things haven't changed much: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-crackdown-pot-black-market-20190219-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-crac... "Consider Prohibition in the United States. Alcohol's a drug, actually a fairly destructive one. Why did they repeal it?" It only worked because they stamped out corruption and killed/jailed all of the organized criminals involved in the illegal booze business. With drugs, it's already gotten too big. The corruption in Mexico is at another level. The cartels run the country. The illegal market will never go away, especially since they don't have to deal with regulations and can provide a cheaper product (which will always be the case).
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > With legalization comes higher prices (and possibly shortages and the inability to get it whenever you want). This isn't actually a feature of legalizing trade in something. If you're just contrasting "legal drug sales" with "illegal drug sales", the illegal vendor has much, much higher costs and isn't in a position to charge lower prices. But California chose to impose ludicrously high compliance costs on the legal vendors, so high that illegal vendors can effortlessly beat them on price.
    - planetzero 7y ago
      "The illegal vendor has much, much higher costs and isn't in a position to charge lower prices." I disagree. Illegal vendors don't have to follow labor laws (they can get much cheaper labor), regulations (they aren't limited by the rules imposed by their state/city), and taxation (they aren't paying extra taxes on top of their current costs). All of these equal lower prices. The legal market will almost never be able to complete with the illegal market, for these very reasons. "But California chose to impose ludicrously high compliance costs on the legal vendors," We were told that when MJ was legalized, all illegal vendors would go away and the state would see a boost in tax revenue. Where do you think this extra tax revenue comes from? Don't drug users want to pay their 'fair share' That I keep hearing about? The reality is they don't really care about paying any taxes and just want their drugs at the cheapest price. The current state of illegal sales clearly shows this.
heavyset_go 7y ago
This company lied to prescribers and patients about their products' indications, efficacy and potential for harm.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

I don't think so, except inasmuch as confirmation bias will lead anyone with an anti-legalize-drugs bias to construe this as evidence for that position. The incentives for these actions can come in part from artificially high prices. More legalization gets you more players, and could perhaps dilute the power to use the machinery of doctors, drug companies, etc. as a top-down drug pushing force. Additionally, society tends to build up immunity with exposure. You can get more irrational behaviors with highly controlled or scarce things. In the short term, introducing a lot of free/legalized drugs into an already constrained society could increase damage, but for the long term? Not such a clear picture, in my opinion. Perhaps a slow loosing to allow society to adapt. Honestly, I see very little here to make this a blow against legalizing drugs besides confirmation bias for those already against it. It also leaves out the cost of the war on drugs, which you would, in a rational analysis, need to compare against the cost/problems of legalization, as the cost/problems of the war on drugs go down. Which one costs more? Organized crime takes a serious hit with legalization, a secondary benefit. Consider Prohibition in the United States. Alcohol's a drug, actually a fairly destructive one. Why did they repeal it?

paulddraper 7y ago
> The incentives for these actions can come in part from artificially high prices. The incentives for these actions come from any sort of price. Plus the addictive effect on the user.
planetzero 7y ago
"Honestly, I see very little here to make this a blow against legalizing drugs besides confirmation bias for those already against it." I don't see Budweiser execs going to prison for selling alcohol that resulted in someone become addicted or killing someone in an accident...which is most likely killing many more people per year than any other drug. "Organized crime takes a serious hit with legalization" This one has been proven false with MJ legalization. In California, for instance, legalization has only gotten more people interested in using and then when they realize they can get it for cheaper on the illegal market, it's put many legal shops out of business. With legalization comes higher prices (and possibly shortages and the inability to get it whenever you want). As a result, it has really done nothing to curb organized crime or illegal sales. This was only my theory before it was legalized, and now it has been proven correct. I guess drug users don't really care about paying their fair share. This was from a year ago, but things haven't changed much: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-crackdown-pot-black-market-20190219-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-crac... "Consider Prohibition in the United States. Alcohol's a drug, actually a fairly destructive one. Why did they repeal it?" It only worked because they stamped out corruption and killed/jailed all of the organized criminals involved in the illegal booze business. With drugs, it's already gotten too big. The corruption in Mexico is at another level. The cartels run the country. The illegal market will never go away, especially since they don't have to deal with regulations and can provide a cheaper product (which will always be the case).
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > With legalization comes higher prices (and possibly shortages and the inability to get it whenever you want). This isn't actually a feature of legalizing trade in something. If you're just contrasting "legal drug sales" with "illegal drug sales", the illegal vendor has much, much higher costs and isn't in a position to charge lower prices. But California chose to impose ludicrously high compliance costs on the legal vendors, so high that illegal vendors can effortlessly beat them on price.
  - planetzero 7y ago
    "The illegal vendor has much, much higher costs and isn't in a position to charge lower prices." I disagree. Illegal vendors don't have to follow labor laws (they can get much cheaper labor), regulations (they aren't limited by the rules imposed by their state/city), and taxation (they aren't paying extra taxes on top of their current costs). All of these equal lower prices. The legal market will almost never be able to complete with the illegal market, for these very reasons. "But California chose to impose ludicrously high compliance costs on the legal vendors," We were told that when MJ was legalized, all illegal vendors would go away and the state would see a boost in tax revenue. Where do you think this extra tax revenue comes from? Don't drug users want to pay their 'fair share' That I keep hearing about? The reality is they don't really care about paying any taxes and just want their drugs at the cheapest price. The current state of illegal sales clearly shows this.

heavyset_go 7y ago

This company lied to prescribers and patients about their products' indications, efficacy and potential for harm.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]