6 ms·

That is an over-simplified solution to a complicated problem. Organized crime would change, not cease to exist. Countries where prostitution is legal still see

That is an over-simplified solution to a complicated problem. Organized crime would change, not cease to exist. Countries where prostitution is legal still see organized abuses in the industry, like brothel owners not following regulations, etc. Moreover, marijuana has the highest likelihood of being legalized of any drug (still not likely) and yet, it is the lowest profit margin for organized crime. Cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, etc. are much more profitable, and legalizing these would be socially irresponsible, if fiscally lucrative.

mdda 15y ago
Profit margins should be expected to be proportionate to illegality : Since the threat of punishment forces vibrant competition out of the market. Similarly, one can track the effectiveness of the war on drugs by looking at the street prices of drugs over time. If the war was effective, prices would be rising. Unfortunately, basic economic theory shows that the war on drugs is a complete failure.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  You seem to think drugs are the only things sold on the black market.
- dylangs1030 15y ago
  Right. And like I said, it might be a fiscal improvement to legalize drugs. You could earn money from it. But, and i mean this in all sincerity, do you want to live in a society where they're freely accessible?
  - munin 15y ago
    It's entirely possible that you do already live in such a society
  - robotresearcher 15y ago
    In Portugal society didn't go to hell when they decriminalized many 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... Please realize that drugs are very accessible right now.
  - gsmaverick 15y ago
    Why should they be illegal? Why should any government regulate what you can and cannot put in your body? For the record, yes I would rather live in a society where drugs were freely accessible.
  - r0s 15y ago
    I absolutely would, I live in a society where guns are freely available. What's the difference? We have to assume reasonable personal responsibility. What's the alternative?
  - knieveltech 15y ago
    If you live anywhere in North America, you're already living in a society where they're freely accessible, so in that respect prohibition has clearly failed. I understand we've all been propagandized to believe that drug use is inherently evil, however it's a mistake to lose site of the fact that (at least in the US) the prison system is largely a subcontracted for-profit industry. An industry with a clearly vested interest in maintaining soaring drug-related conviction rates as well as mandatory minimum sentencing. I, for one, would absolutely prefer to live in a society where drug dependency is treated like a disease and treated.
    - dylangs1030 15y ago
      I agree that rehabilitation is more important that penalization for drug abuse, but towards the original point, drugs aren't accessible in the sense that they're not legal. You cannot get them as easily as you can a gallon of milk.
      - knieveltech 15y ago
        "you can't get them as easily as you can a gallon of milk." I would have to say that's entirely dependent upon who you socialize with, the time of day, and to some extent your age. I can absolutely think of situations I've been in where scoring involved a lot less effort than acquiring a gallon of milk. See also: dorm life.
      - epicureanideal 15y ago
        You're right, I cannot call the milkman to open up the store and let me buy some milk at 3am, or better yet get milk delivered to my door with less than a 30 minute lag time.
bmac27 15y ago
"Countries where prostitution is legal still see organized abuses in the industry, like brothel owners not following regulations, etc." There are organized abuses in every industry, legal or not. We're not scrapping the insurance market because of the schemes that go on between doctors, lawyers & individuals looking to make a buck through phoney claims.
- dylangs1030 15y ago
  That is true, and while I used prostitution as an example, I personally don't see why it should be illegal. However heroin addiction is not the same as corporations and governments lobbying in cahoots. Drugs aren't really viable for an effective lifestyle - at least, not the ones organized crime profits the most on. Even prescription drugs like Vicodin were nearly pulled off the market because of how dangerous they are, even when used correctly and in moderation.
  - gsmaverick 15y ago
    There are many dangerous things out there that are legal and for good reason; if you choose to ingest it you have that choice and in the end you are responsible for that. Are you also for prohibition on smoking because that gets in the way of a "viable effective lifestyle"?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - snsr 15y ago
    > I used prostitution as an example, I personally don't see why it should be illegal. However heroin addiction is not the same as corporations and governments lobbying in cahoots. Drugs aren't really viable for an effective lifestyle - at least, not the ones organized crime profits the most on. Even prescription drugs like Vicodin were nearly pulled off the market because of how dangerous they are, even when used correctly and in moderation. Who are you to dictate what constitutes an "effective lifestyle" for anyone but yourself?
    - 15y ago
anamax 15y ago
> Cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, etc. are much more profitable, and legalizing these would be socially irresponsible, if fiscally lucrative. Are you claiming that the benefits that we actually get from the current prohibitions are greater than the costs of those prohibitions? If so, that's not obviously true. After all, I can get all of those things without too much effort, so what is huge benefit of making them illegal? If not, what definition of "socially irresponsible" are you using?
- dylangs1030 15y ago
  It's not obviously false either - it's at least arguably true. When I said fiscally lucrative, I was admitting there may be a certain profit to legalizing these substances. However, it's socially irresponsible. I don't think a society will function as well with a government making clearly adverse narcotics freely available because people want them.
  - robotresearcher 15y ago
    "clearly adverse narcotics" How are they clearly adverse? Why was it not clear before the middle of the 20th century? Why is it not clear in other countries? Why was alcohol "clearly adverse" in the early 20th century in the US? What's the evidence that making drugs illegal has net benefits to society? It is very, very expensive and unhealthy to lock up so many young people for drug offenses. Illegal drugs do a lot of harm, but so do alcohol, cigarettes and obesity. If narcotics were legal, we would sadly continue to lose good people to them. But the evidence from Portugal* suggests this would be not more than we already do. And we would lose far fewer people to prison, drug-related violence and the accidents and diseases due to the conditions associated with illegal 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... (edit: spelling and added link to article about Portugal's policy experiment)
    - dylangs1030 15y ago
      Legalizing something harmful because there are other harmful things that are ALSO legal isn't sensible. It just means more things should be illegal. And they are adverse because they are unhealthy for consumption. That a prison is unhealthy says more about the American prison system than the comparative health of narcotics. There are a lot of responses I can't cover individually, so here is a thought experiment to extrapolate the restriction and legality issue further: why regulate anything? Why restrict anything? We can viably allow murder and rape to exist as well if gun laws have no regulation - every one is responsible for themselves, and forget the rest.
r0s 15y ago
All of those drugs are more dangerous when they are unregulated. Compare to the personal liberties/responsibilities of firearms please.
r0s 15y ago
When doses are measured and regulated, safety restrictions are adhered, and users can receive help for their problems instead of incarceration, then legalization becomes socially responsible. I would like to point out that usage of these dangerous drugs does not decrease with their legal status.

mdda 15y ago

Profit margins should be expected to be proportionate to illegality : Since the threat of punishment forces vibrant competition out of the market. Similarly, one can track the effectiveness of the war on drugs by looking at the street prices of drugs over time. If the war was effective, prices would be rising. Unfortunately, basic economic theory shows that the war on drugs is a complete failure.

sliverstorm 15y ago
You seem to think drugs are the only things sold on the black market.
dylangs1030 15y ago
Right. And like I said, it might be a fiscal improvement to legalize drugs. You could earn money from it. But, and i mean this in all sincerity, do you want to live in a society where they're freely accessible?
- munin 15y ago
  It's entirely possible that you do already live in such a society
- robotresearcher 15y ago
  In Portugal society didn't go to hell when they decriminalized many 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... Please realize that drugs are very accessible right now.
- gsmaverick 15y ago
  Why should they be illegal? Why should any government regulate what you can and cannot put in your body? For the record, yes I would rather live in a society where drugs were freely accessible.
- r0s 15y ago
  I absolutely would, I live in a society where guns are freely available. What's the difference? We have to assume reasonable personal responsibility. What's the alternative?
- knieveltech 15y ago
  If you live anywhere in North America, you're already living in a society where they're freely accessible, so in that respect prohibition has clearly failed. I understand we've all been propagandized to believe that drug use is inherently evil, however it's a mistake to lose site of the fact that (at least in the US) the prison system is largely a subcontracted for-profit industry. An industry with a clearly vested interest in maintaining soaring drug-related conviction rates as well as mandatory minimum sentencing. I, for one, would absolutely prefer to live in a society where drug dependency is treated like a disease and treated.
  - dylangs1030 15y ago
    I agree that rehabilitation is more important that penalization for drug abuse, but towards the original point, drugs aren't accessible in the sense that they're not legal. You cannot get them as easily as you can a gallon of milk.
    - knieveltech 15y ago
      "you can't get them as easily as you can a gallon of milk." I would have to say that's entirely dependent upon who you socialize with, the time of day, and to some extent your age. I can absolutely think of situations I've been in where scoring involved a lot less effort than acquiring a gallon of milk. See also: dorm life.
    - epicureanideal 15y ago
      You're right, I cannot call the milkman to open up the store and let me buy some milk at 3am, or better yet get milk delivered to my door with less than a 30 minute lag time.

bmac27 15y ago

"Countries where prostitution is legal still see organized abuses in the industry, like brothel owners not following regulations, etc." There are organized abuses in every industry, legal or not. We're not scrapping the insurance market because of the schemes that go on between doctors, lawyers & individuals looking to make a buck through phoney claims.

dylangs1030 15y ago
That is true, and while I used prostitution as an example, I personally don't see why it should be illegal. However heroin addiction is not the same as corporations and governments lobbying in cahoots. Drugs aren't really viable for an effective lifestyle - at least, not the ones organized crime profits the most on. Even prescription drugs like Vicodin were nearly pulled off the market because of how dangerous they are, even when used correctly and in moderation.
- gsmaverick 15y ago
  There are many dangerous things out there that are legal and for good reason; if you choose to ingest it you have that choice and in the end you are responsible for that. Are you also for prohibition on smoking because that gets in the way of a "viable effective lifestyle"?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- snsr 15y ago
  > I used prostitution as an example, I personally don't see why it should be illegal. However heroin addiction is not the same as corporations and governments lobbying in cahoots. Drugs aren't really viable for an effective lifestyle - at least, not the ones organized crime profits the most on. Even prescription drugs like Vicodin were nearly pulled off the market because of how dangerous they are, even when used correctly and in moderation. Who are you to dictate what constitutes an "effective lifestyle" for anyone but yourself?
  - 15y ago

anamax 15y ago

> Cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, etc. are much more profitable, and legalizing these would be socially irresponsible, if fiscally lucrative. Are you claiming that the benefits that we actually get from the current prohibitions are greater than the costs of those prohibitions? If so, that's not obviously true. After all, I can get all of those things without too much effort, so what is huge benefit of making them illegal? If not, what definition of "socially irresponsible" are you using?

dylangs1030 15y ago
It's not obviously false either - it's at least arguably true. When I said fiscally lucrative, I was admitting there may be a certain profit to legalizing these substances. However, it's socially irresponsible. I don't think a society will function as well with a government making clearly adverse narcotics freely available because people want them.
- robotresearcher 15y ago
  "clearly adverse narcotics" How are they clearly adverse? Why was it not clear before the middle of the 20th century? Why is it not clear in other countries? Why was alcohol "clearly adverse" in the early 20th century in the US? What's the evidence that making drugs illegal has net benefits to society? It is very, very expensive and unhealthy to lock up so many young people for drug offenses. Illegal drugs do a lot of harm, but so do alcohol, cigarettes and obesity. If narcotics were legal, we would sadly continue to lose good people to them. But the evidence from Portugal* suggests this would be not more than we already do. And we would lose far fewer people to prison, drug-related violence and the accidents and diseases due to the conditions associated with illegal 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... (edit: spelling and added link to article about Portugal's policy experiment)
  - dylangs1030 15y ago
    Legalizing something harmful because there are other harmful things that are ALSO legal isn't sensible. It just means more things should be illegal. And they are adverse because they are unhealthy for consumption. That a prison is unhealthy says more about the American prison system than the comparative health of narcotics. There are a lot of responses I can't cover individually, so here is a thought experiment to extrapolate the restriction and legality issue further: why regulate anything? Why restrict anything? We can viably allow murder and rape to exist as well if gun laws have no regulation - every one is responsible for themselves, and forget the rest.

r0s 15y ago

All of those drugs are more dangerous when they are unregulated. Compare to the personal liberties/responsibilities of firearms please.

r0s 15y ago

When doses are measured and regulated, safety restrictions are adhered, and users can receive help for their problems instead of incarceration, then legalization becomes socially responsible. I would like to point out that usage of these dangerous drugs does not decrease with their legal status.