3 ms·

> You are intentionally misrepresenting my explicit statement I don't think I am -- in a very (very, very) regulated environment, the cost of substances which

by VMG 13y ago

> You are intentionally misrepresenting my explicit statement I don't think I am -- in a very (very, very) regulated environment, the cost of substances which have perceived high externalities and are available on the regulated market will be much higher than the cost of the same substances on the black market. Or people will shift to alternatives and start sniffing glue. Another difficulty is measuring the harm of drugs against the benefits -- how much do you factor in the subjective pleasure of the individual? What about the art, music and literature that was created by people under the influence of drugs? > My own views of free will and responsibility are informed by considerable research and investigation on the matter. I infer that you reject the notion of free will in certain circumstances, for example when the individual is under the influence of mind-altering substances. Does this also shape your opinion on free speech? (This is purely out of curiosity and completely tangential to other issues)

dredmorbius 13y ago
Re: costs on regulated markets are higher than on black market. Decriminalization of pot has decreased marijuana prices. One of the reasons it's been opposed. To the extent of causing concerns among producers, if I recall stories correctly. Re: glue sniffing. Who's producing that glue? Yes, under dire and bleak circumstances people will resort to all sorts of destructive distractions. Wood alcohol and Krokodil are other examples. For cases in which there isn't a commercial provider, clearly, the manufacturer / merchant responsibility approach wouldn't apply. You'd still treat the addiction element as a health issue, not a criminal one. Parents drugging their kids might be another matter. Re: creatives and drugs I'm specifically talking about negative effects. If it turns out someone's not incurring a negative consequence, then fine. But the alcoholic author who rots their liver while gilding their prose should have a significant portion of health costs covered by the alcohol industry. You can spin your angels on pinheads and generate hypotheticals all you want, but at root what I'm talking about is a clearly articulable net social cost and a responsibility for that cost. You soil your social nest, you pay to clean it up. You know: accepting persona responsibility. I infer that you ask vaguely leading questions without taking a clear stand on your own position. State yours.
- VMG 13y ago
  Re: regulated markets Pot prices are low because they aren't taxed according to your suggested system. Once you start factoring in all the perceived negative effects the drug has on it's users (ignoring the positive effects, as you said), the price shoots up. Silk Roads will continue to exist. Re: glue sniffing So under your system, substances that can be abused as drugs while not marketed as drugs (also "bath salts") will be much cheaper than the regulated, taxed alternatives. Let my clarify my position: regulation and heavy taxation of drugs is ineffective, unjustified and will have bad outcomes. Society fares better if individuals are made responsible for their choices.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    regulation and heavy taxation of drugs is ineffective, unjustified and will have bad outcomes. Alcohol is regulated and taxed. Tobacco is regulated and taxed. Decongestants, cough syrup, and spray paint (not a drug, but a problematic retail good) are regulated, if not uniformly taxed. There are limits to effective regulation, yes, but that's no reason to throw your hands in the air and abandon all of it, which is what you seem to advise. You're continuing to misrepresent my statement (I'm not "ignoring" positive effects, I am capturing negative externalities). And you've dodged and avoided the matter of personal responsibility as I've iterated it several times in accruing those negative externalities to those on whom the responsibility for them lies. Why in your scheme of things should the cost of social ills be allocated to all while the benefits accrue only to a select few? That's precisely the same situation as exists in much of the present global financial markets where financial gains are privatized while losses are socialized. This generates marked adverse incentive and moral hazard problems. In some circumstances (but not all) the mechanism of that has been government action, but the point is that regulation and action can have the effect of capturing or socializing externalities. My argument is that the capitalist market system works best when both profits and costs can be appropriately allocated to those on whom they are attributable. There are many cases where this requires significant intervention in market mechanisms, usually where boundaries of property (e.g., public health, pollution, broadcast of authored works) cannot be otherwise readily determined or enforced. There's a reason Libertarianism remains a largely prepubescent pipe dream. It's a fantasy world.

by VMG 13y ago

dredmorbius 13y ago

Re: costs on regulated markets are higher than on black market. Decriminalization of pot has decreased marijuana prices. One of the reasons it's been opposed. To the extent of causing concerns among producers, if I recall stories correctly. Re: glue sniffing. Who's producing that glue? Yes, under dire and bleak circumstances people will resort to all sorts of destructive distractions. Wood alcohol and Krokodil are other examples. For cases in which there isn't a commercial provider, clearly, the manufacturer / merchant responsibility approach wouldn't apply. You'd still treat the addiction element as a health issue, not a criminal one. Parents drugging their kids might be another matter. Re: creatives and drugs I'm specifically talking about negative effects. If it turns out someone's not incurring a negative consequence, then fine. But the alcoholic author who rots their liver while gilding their prose should have a significant portion of health costs covered by the alcohol industry. You can spin your angels on pinheads and generate hypotheticals all you want, but at root what I'm talking about is a clearly articulable net social cost and a responsibility for that cost. You soil your social nest, you pay to clean it up. You know: accepting persona responsibility. I infer that you ask vaguely leading questions without taking a clear stand on your own position. State yours.

VMG 13y ago
Re: regulated markets Pot prices are low because they aren't taxed according to your suggested system. Once you start factoring in all the perceived negative effects the drug has on it's users (ignoring the positive effects, as you said), the price shoots up. Silk Roads will continue to exist. Re: glue sniffing So under your system, substances that can be abused as drugs while not marketed as drugs (also "bath salts") will be much cheaper than the regulated, taxed alternatives. Let my clarify my position: regulation and heavy taxation of drugs is ineffective, unjustified and will have bad outcomes. Society fares better if individuals are made responsible for their choices.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  regulation and heavy taxation of drugs is ineffective, unjustified and will have bad outcomes. Alcohol is regulated and taxed. Tobacco is regulated and taxed. Decongestants, cough syrup, and spray paint (not a drug, but a problematic retail good) are regulated, if not uniformly taxed. There are limits to effective regulation, yes, but that's no reason to throw your hands in the air and abandon all of it, which is what you seem to advise. You're continuing to misrepresent my statement (I'm not "ignoring" positive effects, I am capturing negative externalities). And you've dodged and avoided the matter of personal responsibility as I've iterated it several times in accruing those negative externalities to those on whom the responsibility for them lies. Why in your scheme of things should the cost of social ills be allocated to all while the benefits accrue only to a select few? That's precisely the same situation as exists in much of the present global financial markets where financial gains are privatized while losses are socialized. This generates marked adverse incentive and moral hazard problems. In some circumstances (but not all) the mechanism of that has been government action, but the point is that regulation and action can have the effect of capturing or socializing externalities. My argument is that the capitalist market system works best when both profits and costs can be appropriately allocated to those on whom they are attributable. There are many cases where this requires significant intervention in market mechanisms, usually where boundaries of property (e.g., public health, pollution, broadcast of authored works) cannot be otherwise readily determined or enforced. There's a reason Libertarianism remains a largely prepubescent pipe dream. It's a fantasy world.