4 ms·

As a meta-commentary on this category of issues, I tend to be against these sort of substance bans (PEDs[1] in sports is another timely example), and I often se

As a meta-commentary on this category of issues, I tend to be against these sort of substance bans (PEDs[1] in sports is another timely example), and I often see that people who support such measures tend to talk about what things would be like if these substances were completely gotten rid of[2]. To me, this is complete fantasy because there's never been a substance ban that has been very effective at reducing usage of a popular substance, instead such bans simply create black markets out of open markets. But when there's this idea, mostly but not exclusively on the pro-criminalization side, that we can completely stamp out markets where there is inelastic demand through bans/criminalization and enforcement, then you get justifications for more and more extreme measures from the enforcement side. In reality though, we tend to see hugely diminishing returns accompanying these measures, and the numbers in the article demonstrate these diminishing returns well (i.e. the program is incredibly broad, yet the spoils being bragged about are incredibly paltry compared to the size of the related markets). The assumption that bans/criminalization can significantly reduce demand for substances with inelastic demand is completely unreasonable given the track record of such measures. For example, demand for PEDs in professional sports is particularly inelastic because the rewards for even marginal increases in performance are so high and the penalties are so rare and low as to easily be subsidized by the increased salary resulting from use of PEDs, not to mention the cognitive and social biases that favor optimizing short-term over long-term performance. In discussing such issues, I think that actual outcomes of previous and current banning/criminalization policies has to start being favored as the baseline effect of future policies rather than this pie in the sky idea that these sort of policies can have at or near 100% efficacy. Then perhaps we can move on from the inane moralizing that tends to accompany such discussions to a point where we can have results oriented discourse grounded in reality on these topics. [1]Performance Enhancing Drugs, actually used more broadly to label all performance enhancing substances including human hormones and blood oxygenation. [2]this really isn't a straw man, I've been involved in a few discussions in the last couple months in which the ban/criminalization proponents (about 4 or so different people) were arguing their position from the assumption that bans/criminalization can lead to reduction of substance usage to negligible levels. [edited to fix formatting and to clarify footnote 1]

api 13y ago
Depending on the drug, are you sure you'd even want them completely gotten rid of? Ban psychedelics and you'd have a lot less good music and art.
- shawn-furyan 13y ago
  Puritanical stuffiness seems to be popular in domestic policy. Coffee is my vice of choice, but I personally don't begrudge others their own, whether or not they wound up on the legal or illegal side of the game of substance ban musical chairs. That being said, and I'm not going to push this point too hard, there is a counterpoint to the relationship of drugs to the arts in that we've seen a lot of tragedy come out of that relationship as well. I wouldn't presume to tell people what they can and can't use, but I likewise wouldn't deny that there are both positive and negative effects of using such substances. I take from your comment though the idea that we overwhelmingly emphasize the negative aspects of substance use/abuse. Obviously people enjoy them, but that never seems to come up.
drblast 13y ago
It would be interesting if politicians had to argue for the drug war using the actual effects as the reasons. "Proposition 843 will raise the price of cocaine and heroine and make possession illegal so as to create a massive demand for it among a newly expanded criminal class. We'd like to ensure that the price is so high that the enforcement agencies are outspent and outsmarted at every turn by extremely well-funded drug cartels. We will pay the additional enforcement costs through increased taxes and seizure of private property and assets. Additionally, we plan to make selling these drugs so lucrative that it becomes one of very few attractive career options for our nation's poor."
mtdewcmu 13y ago
> To me, this is complete fantasy because there's never been a substance ban that has been very effective at reducing usage of a popular substance That statement is more or less true in a broad sense, but at the level of individual substances, bans can be quite effective. There have been cases of recreational drugs effectively disappearing due to changes in law or de facto bans. It has happened especially with pharmaceuticals. Quaalude, a prescription sleeping pill, was popular recreationally in the 70s and early 80s (see, e.g., Cheech and Chong's Up In Smoke), but it was put into schedule I of the CSA in the mid 80s, which made it illegal for all purposes. Supposedly, there were bootleg versions for a short time, but it has long since faded into legend (control of precursor chemicals might have been the final decisive blow). The same happened with many prescription drugs of the 60s and 70s, which were either banned outright, severely restricted, and/or voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer due to pressure. Barbiturates used to be popular, but, although they're currently in schedule II and not banned outright, they're prescribed so infrequently that they're as good as gone. The most recent prescription to disappear due to gov't action was Rohypnol (but I suspect the popularity of this drug was overblown). If you read the text of the CSA, you'll find a long list of obscure names of drugs of all types that are not actively traded anywhere on earth, some of which probably never had significant markets, but others of which certainly did, or could have. It's true that overall, drug prohibition has been fantastically ineffective at eliminating drug use; cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana continue to flood in, supplied by international drug trafficking organizations. But there's a cat-and-mouse game that goes on, and some drugs more than others are vulnerable to government action.

api 13y ago

Depending on the drug, are you sure you'd even want them completely gotten rid of? Ban psychedelics and you'd have a lot less good music and art.

shawn-furyan 13y ago
Puritanical stuffiness seems to be popular in domestic policy. Coffee is my vice of choice, but I personally don't begrudge others their own, whether or not they wound up on the legal or illegal side of the game of substance ban musical chairs. That being said, and I'm not going to push this point too hard, there is a counterpoint to the relationship of drugs to the arts in that we've seen a lot of tragedy come out of that relationship as well. I wouldn't presume to tell people what they can and can't use, but I likewise wouldn't deny that there are both positive and negative effects of using such substances. I take from your comment though the idea that we overwhelmingly emphasize the negative aspects of substance use/abuse. Obviously people enjoy them, but that never seems to come up.

drblast 13y ago

It would be interesting if politicians had to argue for the drug war using the actual effects as the reasons. "Proposition 843 will raise the price of cocaine and heroine and make possession illegal so as to create a massive demand for it among a newly expanded criminal class. We'd like to ensure that the price is so high that the enforcement agencies are outspent and outsmarted at every turn by extremely well-funded drug cartels. We will pay the additional enforcement costs through increased taxes and seizure of private property and assets. Additionally, we plan to make selling these drugs so lucrative that it becomes one of very few attractive career options for our nation's poor."

mtdewcmu 13y ago

> To me, this is complete fantasy because there's never been a substance ban that has been very effective at reducing usage of a popular substance That statement is more or less true in a broad sense, but at the level of individual substances, bans can be quite effective. There have been cases of recreational drugs effectively disappearing due to changes in law or de facto bans. It has happened especially with pharmaceuticals. Quaalude, a prescription sleeping pill, was popular recreationally in the 70s and early 80s (see, e.g., Cheech and Chong's Up In Smoke), but it was put into schedule I of the CSA in the mid 80s, which made it illegal for all purposes. Supposedly, there were bootleg versions for a short time, but it has long since faded into legend (control of precursor chemicals might have been the final decisive blow). The same happened with many prescription drugs of the 60s and 70s, which were either banned outright, severely restricted, and/or voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer due to pressure. Barbiturates used to be popular, but, although they're currently in schedule II and not banned outright, they're prescribed so infrequently that they're as good as gone. The most recent prescription to disappear due to gov't action was Rohypnol (but I suspect the popularity of this drug was overblown). If you read the text of the CSA, you'll find a long list of obscure names of drugs of all types that are not actively traded anywhere on earth, some of which probably never had significant markets, but others of which certainly did, or could have. It's true that overall, drug prohibition has been fantastically ineffective at eliminating drug use; cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana continue to flood in, supplied by international drug trafficking organizations. But there's a cat-and-mouse game that goes on, and some drugs more than others are vulnerable to government action.