5 ms·

Yes, however free supply will drive down prices. The current street price that people are perfectly willing to pay for 1 gram of cocaine tells a lot about the d

by adsr 16y ago

Yes, however free supply will drive down prices. The current street price that people are perfectly willing to pay for 1 gram of cocaine tells a lot about the demand, and just how addictive the drug is. There is no reason legal cocaine would cost more than say, coffee. Now, what would cocaine at that price level do to a population, families and to society? I've seen the argument before, mostly applied to lighter drugs like marijuana though. In my view it's your argument that is a sweeping generalization. It's also unsupported, where have cocaine legalization been applied successfully? >It should be a choice. That's so naive. We are talking about an addictive substance, if it is a choice then why don't crack/cocaine addicts just quit. Someone is down voting my comment, yet this person doesn't have counter argument, it just happens to not be in alignment with their view.

heed 16y ago
Portugal has had much success with decriminalizing personal use of drugs. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.ht... It's important to note that legalization doesn't mean there isn't regulation, or that users are resolved of all responsibility while under the influence.
- adsr 16y ago
  Yes, and I can agree somewhat with the reasoning behind it. Instead of chasing the end users, they are focusing their resources on the dealers and smugglers. Similar programs have been tested in Great britain in some select cities where known heroin users get free heroin and fresh needles.
pstuart 16y ago
I would downvote you if I could. Alcohol is plenty cheap -- use that as your model for what happens when a cheap and potentially addictive drug is available in society.
- adsr 16y ago
  Well have you got any experience of hard drugs? If so have you seen the downside yet? It doesn't appear so. First of all, alcohol is not without problems, how much does alcohol cost society, how many violent crimes, divorces, lost jobs and so on is directly related to it? Cocaine is more addictive, much more likely to kill you from an overdose. It will take you from decent citizen to someone who hasn't slept for a week and thinks about nothing else than how to get hold of more at a much faster rate than alcohol. Now, increase availability, quality and reduce the price.
- pstuart 16y ago
  Apparently the thread is too deep to reply to you directly: but yes, I have tried hard drugs and walked away. My brother was not so lucky -- he died of a heroin overdose. I have lost other friends to meth. My mother was an alcoholic who died homeless. Is that enough "cred"?
  - adsr 16y ago
    I think there's a time limit in place to make you think twice before you reply, and avoid flame wars. It has little to do with credibility, but your comment appeared as pretty naive. Your reply surprise me since you know "what happens when a cheap and potentially addictive drug is available in society"
    - pstuart 16y ago
      I don't want to flame you but your attitude just makes me crazy angry. The drug wars have nothing to do with protecting people from hurting themselves -- it's just another tool for controlling the masses. I will return the favor and suggest that your attitude about this is rather naive. Drugs are out there. People will want to use them even if you don't. You cannot make them go away. The sensible "adult" approach to this is to legalize them all, tax and regulate the hell out of them and be prepared to help those that need help. Simple, cost-effective, and respectful of peoples personal choices.
      - 16y ago
blahblahblah 16y ago
"There is no reason legal cocaine would cost more than say, coffee. Now, what would cocaine at that price level do to a population, families and to society?" It seems to me the most reasonable approach to legalization is to deliberately set up a negative feedback loop by taxing the drug and funding harm reduction programs (prevention/treatment) directly from the tax proceeds. As long as the price is set within a range that is low enough to prevent black market distribution from being so profitable that criminals are willing to take on the associated risks, the government would effectively be able to set the equilibrium via the tax rate. Eliminating the black market would go a long way towards eliminating the violent crime associated with the drug trade.
- Cossolus 16y ago
  Let me get this straight... you think you're going to regulate the behavior of a crackhead by changing his tax rate?
  - blahblahblah 16y ago
    No. I'm saying that you put a hefty tax on the drug so that when the crackhead buys it most of the money paid for the drug goes toward: 1) Funding programs to educate people with factual information about the dangers of substance abuse to persuade as many people as possible that using drugs is probably not in their best interest and, in particular, to persuade some of the individuals who are most at risk of going down that path that maybe spending some time on the psychotherapist's couch dealing with the root causes of their problems would be a good idea 2) Funding programs for at risk people without health insurance to provide affordable access to mental health services so they can resolve their problems before they resort to the dysfunctional strategy of using mood-altering substances to cope 3) Funding treatment for the addicts who want to get off drugs to successfully do so Right now, 0% of the money that an addict spends on purchasing drugs goes towards anything positive. 100% goes straight into the pockets of the drug cartels and their middlemen with no social benefit whatsoever. What I'm saying is that you could lower the price of the drug just enough to make the profit-to-risk ratio unattractive to the cartels (and reduce the likelihood that a crackhead is going to have to burglarize your house in order to fund his drug habit) and simultaneously bring in enough tax revenue to fund programs aimed both at reducing the demand for drugs and reducing the societal impact of the problem by improving public mental health and providing treatment for addicts.

by adsr 16y ago

heed 16y ago

Portugal has had much success with decriminalizing personal use of drugs. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.ht... It's important to note that legalization doesn't mean there isn't regulation, or that users are resolved of all responsibility while under the influence.

adsr 16y ago
Yes, and I can agree somewhat with the reasoning behind it. Instead of chasing the end users, they are focusing their resources on the dealers and smugglers. Similar programs have been tested in Great britain in some select cities where known heroin users get free heroin and fresh needles.

pstuart 16y ago

I would downvote you if I could. Alcohol is plenty cheap -- use that as your model for what happens when a cheap and potentially addictive drug is available in society.

adsr 16y ago
Well have you got any experience of hard drugs? If so have you seen the downside yet? It doesn't appear so. First of all, alcohol is not without problems, how much does alcohol cost society, how many violent crimes, divorces, lost jobs and so on is directly related to it? Cocaine is more addictive, much more likely to kill you from an overdose. It will take you from decent citizen to someone who hasn't slept for a week and thinks about nothing else than how to get hold of more at a much faster rate than alcohol. Now, increase availability, quality and reduce the price.
pstuart 16y ago
Apparently the thread is too deep to reply to you directly: but yes, I have tried hard drugs and walked away. My brother was not so lucky -- he died of a heroin overdose. I have lost other friends to meth. My mother was an alcoholic who died homeless. Is that enough "cred"?
- adsr 16y ago
  I think there's a time limit in place to make you think twice before you reply, and avoid flame wars. It has little to do with credibility, but your comment appeared as pretty naive. Your reply surprise me since you know "what happens when a cheap and potentially addictive drug is available in society"
  - pstuart 16y ago
    I don't want to flame you but your attitude just makes me crazy angry. The drug wars have nothing to do with protecting people from hurting themselves -- it's just another tool for controlling the masses. I will return the favor and suggest that your attitude about this is rather naive. Drugs are out there. People will want to use them even if you don't. You cannot make them go away. The sensible "adult" approach to this is to legalize them all, tax and regulate the hell out of them and be prepared to help those that need help. Simple, cost-effective, and respectful of peoples personal choices.
    - 16y ago

blahblahblah 16y ago

"There is no reason legal cocaine would cost more than say, coffee. Now, what would cocaine at that price level do to a population, families and to society?" It seems to me the most reasonable approach to legalization is to deliberately set up a negative feedback loop by taxing the drug and funding harm reduction programs (prevention/treatment) directly from the tax proceeds. As long as the price is set within a range that is low enough to prevent black market distribution from being so profitable that criminals are willing to take on the associated risks, the government would effectively be able to set the equilibrium via the tax rate. Eliminating the black market would go a long way towards eliminating the violent crime associated with the drug trade.

Cossolus 16y ago
Let me get this straight... you think you're going to regulate the behavior of a crackhead by changing his tax rate?
- blahblahblah 16y ago
  No. I'm saying that you put a hefty tax on the drug so that when the crackhead buys it most of the money paid for the drug goes toward: 1) Funding programs to educate people with factual information about the dangers of substance abuse to persuade as many people as possible that using drugs is probably not in their best interest and, in particular, to persuade some of the individuals who are most at risk of going down that path that maybe spending some time on the psychotherapist's couch dealing with the root causes of their problems would be a good idea 2) Funding programs for at risk people without health insurance to provide affordable access to mental health services so they can resolve their problems before they resort to the dysfunctional strategy of using mood-altering substances to cope 3) Funding treatment for the addicts who want to get off drugs to successfully do so Right now, 0% of the money that an addict spends on purchasing drugs goes towards anything positive. 100% goes straight into the pockets of the drug cartels and their middlemen with no social benefit whatsoever. What I'm saying is that you could lower the price of the drug just enough to make the profit-to-risk ratio unattractive to the cartels (and reduce the likelihood that a crackhead is going to have to burglarize your house in order to fund his drug habit) and simultaneously bring in enough tax revenue to fund programs aimed both at reducing the demand for drugs and reducing the societal impact of the problem by improving public mental health and providing treatment for addicts.