4 ms·

You can still be highly effective in disincentivizing behavior without completely preventing it. Enforcement raises risk, raising prices, which decreases consum

by dpiers 6y ago

You can still be highly effective in disincentivizing behavior without completely preventing it. Enforcement raises risk, raising prices, which decreases consumption and thus the incentive to distribute. People are less likely to want to participate as a seller or buyer. You talk a big game, but I don't think you understand the reality for people who are involved and get caught. Let me know when one of your closest friends gets arrested by the Feds and you don't get to see them for a decade plus.

freedomben 6y ago
Not sure I understand your argument. It seems like you are against allowing these markets to function. But then you say: > Let me know when one of your closest friends gets arrested by the Feds and you don't get to see them for a decade plus.* Which seems like an argument in support of GP. If we didn't make these illegal, which then increases prices and danger (only the most ruthless survive), which in turn incentivizes one of your closest friends to take the risk by getting involved in the supply side, then you wouldn't have to worry about "your closest friends gets arrested by the Feds and you don't get to see them for a decade plus." If you're talking about demand side (i.e. your friend is a user), banning the markets won't address that problem. Sure it impacts demand, but it will never eliminate it and it only makes those sucked in all the more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, and unable to get help from law enforcement since they are committing crimes (this is the identical problem that sex workers with abusive jons and/or "pimps" often have as well).
- dpiers 6y ago
  I am opposed to allowing the markets to function, and believe the parent post is overly dismissive of the efficacy of enforcement as a deterrent. I intended to call out the folly of their idealism - "the war cannot be won" - the Feds don't have to win a war. Every battle they win destroys the lives of the people foolish enough to be involved. Once you're in their sights it's only a matter of time before you slip up and then you're done.

by dpiers 6y ago

freedomben 6y ago

Not sure I understand your argument. It seems like you are against allowing these markets to function. But then you say: > Let me know when one of your closest friends gets arrested by the Feds and you don't get to see them for a decade plus.* Which seems like an argument in support of GP. If we didn't make these illegal, which then increases prices and danger (only the most ruthless survive), which in turn incentivizes one of your closest friends to take the risk by getting involved in the supply side, then you wouldn't have to worry about "your closest friends gets arrested by the Feds and you don't get to see them for a decade plus." If you're talking about demand side (i.e. your friend is a user), banning the markets won't address that problem. Sure it impacts demand, but it will never eliminate it and it only makes those sucked in all the more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, and unable to get help from law enforcement since they are committing crimes (this is the identical problem that sex workers with abusive jons and/or "pimps" often have as well).

dpiers 6y ago
I am opposed to allowing the markets to function, and believe the parent post is overly dismissive of the efficacy of enforcement as a deterrent. I intended to call out the folly of their idealism - "the war cannot be won" - the Feds don't have to win a war. Every battle they win destroys the lives of the people foolish enough to be involved. Once you're in their sights it's only a matter of time before you slip up and then you're done.