4 ms·

Drugs are the big money maker similar to alcohol during prohibition. Legalization would dramatically reduce the power of gangs and cartels.

tunesmith 14y ago
There would still be the social cost, though, of the much more highly-addictive drugs (compared to alcohol).
- gtaylor 14y ago
  A large number of the people who would be hit heavily by these are already using in some form.
- rdl 14y ago
  Yes, but I know of fairly successful meth addicts (who were corporate executives for years, and then eventually ramped down as they got older) -- and there are stories of people who took huge amounts of opiates on an ongoing basis while remaining fairly functional. I think there are undoubtedly social costs due to legal drugs, but most of the harm done to highly addicted people is due to the drugs being illegal, vs. the drugs themselves. This seems like it would be difficult to study without changing drug laws in two identical areas which happen to not have trade between them. Otherwise, shifts over time, or shifts due to national demographics, or something else could confound the results.
  - tunesmith 14y ago
    Well, I'm not arguing that "forall" drug users, large negative effects exist... you're only showing that "there exists" at least one drug user where large negative effects exist. We're really arguing magnitude - I imagine we probably disagree on which side of the scale the magnitude is heaviest. But beyond that, yeah I agree that it would require the right tests, and that definitely gets beyond my knowledge.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >There would still be the social cost, though, of the much more highly-addictive drugs (compared to alcohol). You're assuming usage would increase. Legalizing drugs but taxing the dickens out of them removes the huge profit motive from distributors, so you would see less "marketing" and fewer unsuspecting people getting addicted in the first place, and licensed distributors would be far less likely to unlawfully target children. Then you can use the tax revenue generated to fund anti-drug programs like the ones that have been relatively successful in reducing cigarette smoking in recent years, to stigmatize drugs use as much as possible socially. And we can make getting drugs very unsexy: Require them to be sold only by licensed pharmacists who are obligated to describe the correct dosage and side effects etc. For hard drugs, require them to be consumed on the seller's premises with a physician present at all times and the user to be attached to medical monitoring equipment. The goal should be to make drug use legal but lame. The problem now is that people don't recognize the risks and costs and foolishly choose to consume dangerous and addictive substances. Make them go talk to a legitimate physician in a lab coat who explains how doing this will cause their teeth to fall out and suddenly the whole idea just seems silly. Meanwhile the availability of legal drugs makes it totally irrational to make illegal street purchases and defeats the black market.
  - intended 14y ago
    usage would shift. There are many reasons people take drugs, and in the places where people don't have an escape or a way out, people will sniff glue if they've reached that stage. Fixing people is HARD. If you have someone who suffers from depression, its a quick way to suddenly see how hard they will have to travel to reach to just functionality, and from there to being competitive with their cohort.

tunesmith 14y ago

There would still be the social cost, though, of the much more highly-addictive drugs (compared to alcohol).

gtaylor 14y ago
A large number of the people who would be hit heavily by these are already using in some form.
rdl 14y ago
Yes, but I know of fairly successful meth addicts (who were corporate executives for years, and then eventually ramped down as they got older) -- and there are stories of people who took huge amounts of opiates on an ongoing basis while remaining fairly functional. I think there are undoubtedly social costs due to legal drugs, but most of the harm done to highly addicted people is due to the drugs being illegal, vs. the drugs themselves. This seems like it would be difficult to study without changing drug laws in two identical areas which happen to not have trade between them. Otherwise, shifts over time, or shifts due to national demographics, or something else could confound the results.
- tunesmith 14y ago
  Well, I'm not arguing that "forall" drug users, large negative effects exist... you're only showing that "there exists" at least one drug user where large negative effects exist. We're really arguing magnitude - I imagine we probably disagree on which side of the scale the magnitude is heaviest. But beyond that, yeah I agree that it would require the right tests, and that definitely gets beyond my knowledge.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>There would still be the social cost, though, of the much more highly-addictive drugs (compared to alcohol). You're assuming usage would increase. Legalizing drugs but taxing the dickens out of them removes the huge profit motive from distributors, so you would see less "marketing" and fewer unsuspecting people getting addicted in the first place, and licensed distributors would be far less likely to unlawfully target children. Then you can use the tax revenue generated to fund anti-drug programs like the ones that have been relatively successful in reducing cigarette smoking in recent years, to stigmatize drugs use as much as possible socially. And we can make getting drugs very unsexy: Require them to be sold only by licensed pharmacists who are obligated to describe the correct dosage and side effects etc. For hard drugs, require them to be consumed on the seller's premises with a physician present at all times and the user to be attached to medical monitoring equipment. The goal should be to make drug use legal but lame. The problem now is that people don't recognize the risks and costs and foolishly choose to consume dangerous and addictive substances. Make them go talk to a legitimate physician in a lab coat who explains how doing this will cause their teeth to fall out and suddenly the whole idea just seems silly. Meanwhile the availability of legal drugs makes it totally irrational to make illegal street purchases and defeats the black market.
- intended 14y ago
  usage would shift. There are many reasons people take drugs, and in the places where people don't have an escape or a way out, people will sniff glue if they've reached that stage. Fixing people is HARD. If you have someone who suffers from depression, its a quick way to suddenly see how hard they will have to travel to reach to just functionality, and from there to being competitive with their cohort.