4 ms·

So we should make selling drugs legal, but keep the use of them illegal? That way cartels would still be undercut, but we could still lower drug use. I wonder

So we should make selling drugs legal, but keep the use of them illegal? That way cartels would still be undercut, but we could still lower drug use. I wonder if that would actually work.

lazyant 12y ago
that's (Edit: exactly he opposite) of how it is in several European countries (consuming/possession of some drugs / quantities is legal, it's illegal to sell)
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  That's opposite what I was suggesting. The drug dealers can legally sell drugs, the users get in trouble for buying drugs. Just like the prostitutes can legally sell sex, but the johns get in trouble for buying sex.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    I think it is the opposite of what you were saying. It's illegal for drug dealers to sell drugs (the pimp). It's illegal to grow or make drugs (the trafficker). It's not illegal to consume drugs (as the drug user is the prostitute or the perceived "victim" of the crime). In this case there is no john. Addiction is a mental illness, so the drug user is the victim just like the prostitute would be.
    - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
      In the case of a consenting prostitute, sex is what is being sold. In the case where they aren't consenting, you are dealing with a human trafficker selling (renting) a human. But as long as we are talking about consensual prostitution, sex is the item being sold, not the person.
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      I believe that you cannot criminalize half of a transaction. Further, you cannot criminalize any necessary step in a chain of commerce that ends in a legal transaction. If it is okay to use a drug, it is okay to buy it. If it is okay to buy it, it is okay to sell it. If it is okay to sell it, it is okay to produce it. If it is okay to produce it, it is okay to acquire the raw materials and precursors (i.e. grow cannabis, grow mycelium, grow ergot, buy pseudoephedrine). If there is a possible malicious use or purpose, you can only criminalize that chain as far back as the last link in an innocent use or purpose. If you criminalize methamphetamine, you cannot also criminalize pseudoephedrine, because it is still a decongestant cold remedy, which is an innocent purpose. In my view, you cannot separate links from the web of commerce by outlawing an intermediate activity and pretend that the orphaned innocent activities are not affected by it. I think those laws previously mentioned are thus aimed more at influencing policing activity. Left to their own devices, a cop would prefer to arrest a prostitute than 10 johns, and would prefer to arrest a pimp than 10 prostitutes, and would prefer to arrest an organized crime captain than 10 pimps, and would prefer to arrest a kingpin than 10 captains. Interrupting that walk to the root of the crime tree at the prostitute level forces them to fight the crime where it occurs rather than seize the money.
      - Turbots 12y ago
        No. The prostitute is the only one who is actually suffering in this case. They are suffering because they sell their body for sex, but at a price which is forced onto them, or sometimes at no price at all (all the money going to the pimp in exchange for 'protection'). If you remove the pimps, the women who would consent in being a prostitute (ie. not forced by some pimp) could ask what they would think is fair and could provide for themselves (if they could not see any other option to make a living) making it completely 'out of free will' There still is a legitimate cause for the existence of prostitutes, since some men are better off paying for sex to someone who is willing to make a living out of it, than to let some men run around all frustrated and horny (which is a major root cause of rape)
      - freehunter 12y ago
        Sure you can. Just say it's not illegal to use drugs but it's illegal to sell them. Easy as that. You're outlawing every activity that happens except the actions of the victim. Addiction is considered a mental illness by the US government. If we outlaw consumption of drugs by an addict, we're throwing people in jail for having a mental illness. It doesn't matter where they got the drugs from, they're the victim. However, selling drugs is not an addiction. Growing drugs is not an addiction. They're crimes, because you're victimizing someone with a mental illness. You're not criminalizing any necessary step in a chain of commerce that ends in a legal transaction because in this situation there is no legal transaction that lets you purchase illegal drugs.
rpearl 12y ago
Why is lowering drug use an actual goal here? Is it totally unheard of for drug use to be a responsible recreational activity? Is it fundamentally the case that drug use is irresponsible? Why?

So we should make selling drugs legal, but keep the use of them illegal? That way cartels would still be undercut, but we could still lower drug use. I wonder if that would actually work.

lazyant 12y ago

that's (Edit: exactly he opposite) of how it is in several European countries (consuming/possession of some drugs / quantities is legal, it's illegal to sell)

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
That's opposite what I was suggesting. The drug dealers can legally sell drugs, the users get in trouble for buying drugs. Just like the prostitutes can legally sell sex, but the johns get in trouble for buying sex.
- freehunter 12y ago
  I think it is the opposite of what you were saying. It's illegal for drug dealers to sell drugs (the pimp). It's illegal to grow or make drugs (the trafficker). It's not illegal to consume drugs (as the drug user is the prostitute or the perceived "victim" of the crime). In this case there is no john. Addiction is a mental illness, so the drug user is the victim just like the prostitute would be.
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    In the case of a consenting prostitute, sex is what is being sold. In the case where they aren't consenting, you are dealing with a human trafficker selling (renting) a human. But as long as we are talking about consensual prostitution, sex is the item being sold, not the person.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    I believe that you cannot criminalize half of a transaction. Further, you cannot criminalize any necessary step in a chain of commerce that ends in a legal transaction. If it is okay to use a drug, it is okay to buy it. If it is okay to buy it, it is okay to sell it. If it is okay to sell it, it is okay to produce it. If it is okay to produce it, it is okay to acquire the raw materials and precursors (i.e. grow cannabis, grow mycelium, grow ergot, buy pseudoephedrine). If there is a possible malicious use or purpose, you can only criminalize that chain as far back as the last link in an innocent use or purpose. If you criminalize methamphetamine, you cannot also criminalize pseudoephedrine, because it is still a decongestant cold remedy, which is an innocent purpose. In my view, you cannot separate links from the web of commerce by outlawing an intermediate activity and pretend that the orphaned innocent activities are not affected by it. I think those laws previously mentioned are thus aimed more at influencing policing activity. Left to their own devices, a cop would prefer to arrest a prostitute than 10 johns, and would prefer to arrest a pimp than 10 prostitutes, and would prefer to arrest an organized crime captain than 10 pimps, and would prefer to arrest a kingpin than 10 captains. Interrupting that walk to the root of the crime tree at the prostitute level forces them to fight the crime where it occurs rather than seize the money.
    - Turbots 12y ago
      No. The prostitute is the only one who is actually suffering in this case. They are suffering because they sell their body for sex, but at a price which is forced onto them, or sometimes at no price at all (all the money going to the pimp in exchange for 'protection'). If you remove the pimps, the women who would consent in being a prostitute (ie. not forced by some pimp) could ask what they would think is fair and could provide for themselves (if they could not see any other option to make a living) making it completely 'out of free will' There still is a legitimate cause for the existence of prostitutes, since some men are better off paying for sex to someone who is willing to make a living out of it, than to let some men run around all frustrated and horny (which is a major root cause of rape)
    - freehunter 12y ago
      Sure you can. Just say it's not illegal to use drugs but it's illegal to sell them. Easy as that. You're outlawing every activity that happens except the actions of the victim. Addiction is considered a mental illness by the US government. If we outlaw consumption of drugs by an addict, we're throwing people in jail for having a mental illness. It doesn't matter where they got the drugs from, they're the victim. However, selling drugs is not an addiction. Growing drugs is not an addiction. They're crimes, because you're victimizing someone with a mental illness. You're not criminalizing any necessary step in a chain of commerce that ends in a legal transaction because in this situation there is no legal transaction that lets you purchase illegal drugs.

rpearl 12y ago

Why is lowering drug use an actual goal here? Is it totally unheard of for drug use to be a responsible recreational activity? Is it fundamentally the case that drug use is irresponsible? Why?