Spiraling epidemic

[indiucky]

I used to know a guy that once said that if he had his choice of drug houses to raid it would be a heroin one. People just laying about...

Wouldn't want to be the guy kicking the door in on a house full of pcp junkies.

Or drinking Whiskey!!!!!

 

[Fargo]

Let's look at it mathematically. If prohibition makes the product five times as expensive on the black market then a user must commit five times as many robberies.

And let's consider the group of people who could afford to feed their habit without any criminal activity at all.

Many people prefer safer opiates like hydrocodone. And many people are addicted to it while holding down jobs. I very much doubt that many people would turn to heroin if better options were available and affordable.

Riddle me this, did the effective price of weed go up or down in Colorado upon legalization?

 

[Fargo]

How does one draw that conclusion?


I guess we should define the question before we start discussing the merits of the answer, shouldn't we?

All those in favor of decriminalizing pharmaceuticals because you think it will solve all of the problems associated with the use of that drug, say "Control."


All those in favor of decriminalizing pharmaceuticals because (a) there is no measurable, tangible benefit from making them illegal; (b) the cost of enforcement far surpasses any real benefit; and/or (c) it's none of their damn business what someone puts in his body, say "Freedom."

It's such a straw man to argue that support for the decriminalization of drugs is based on the notion that removing the illegal status will solve all the problems associated with it. I can't think of a single person who has made that argument. Ever.

Before you get too high and mighty about straw men, perhaps you should go back and retread what I wrote. Calling something an "easy answer" in no way entails saying that will solve all associated problems. People in this very thread have proposed it as the easy answer, like tv1217, but on Darwinian principles not on the utopian principles you made up and ascribe to me.

 

[steveh_131]

Riddle me this, did the effective price of weed go up or down in Colorado upon legalization?

Colorado is not a free market. Supply is artificially restricted by the government. Demand is artificially inflated by prohibition in surrounding states.

Are you really going to try to make the argument that prohibition does not inflate prices?

 

[88GT]

Before you get too high and mighty about straw men, perhaps you should go back and retread what I wrote. Calling something an "easy answer" in no way entails saying that will solve all associated problems. People in this very thread have proposed it as the easy answer, like tv1217, but on Darwinian principles not on the utopian principles you made up and ascribe to me.

Who is being high and mighty, Mr. Pot?

I find the legalization question to be extremely easy.

Let's look at it this way:

Option A: pharmaceuticals remain illegal/controlled/regulated
Consequences of Option A: addicts will exist, addicts will commit crimes against persons and property to fund the addiction, the state will spend billions of taxpayer dollars fighting it

Option B: pharmaceuticals are decirminalized
Consequences of Option B: addicts will exist, addicts will commit crimes against persons and property to fund the addiction, the state will NOT spend billions of taxpayer dollars fighting it.

I simply said we had to define the question. Since you didn't, I did. And I decided that it IS an easy answer to decriminalize. What question would you be asking such that you cannot come up with an easy answer?

 

[Fargo]

I no longer find it to be worthwhile to discuss this with you. Have a good evening.

 

[Fargo]

Colorado is not a free market. Supply is artificially restricted by the government. Demand is artificially inflated by prohibition in surrounding states.

Are you really going to try to make the argument that prohibition does not inflate prices?

I thought we were arguing about the effects of legalization, not legalization and a fantasy pure free market. As I have repeatedly said, there are tons of unintended consequences lurking here which are not being considered or addressed. Legalized drugs have NEVER led to a free market that I am aware of. It is contrary to the nature of the beast.

 

[steveh_131]

I thought we were arguing about the effects of legalization, not legalization and a fantasy pure free market. As I have repeatedly said, there are tons of unintended consequences lurking here which are not being considered or addressed. Legalized drugs have NEVER led to a free market that I am aware of. It is contrary to the nature of the beast.

Why would drugs be immune from the laws of supply and demand?

Is alcohol outrageously priced in a free market? No.

Is tobacco? Only because of taxes.

If there were fields of marijuana being grown by anyone that wanted to, it would be cheap.

 

[churchmouse]

Take away the risk and the prices may drop.

 

[Fargo]

I thought we were arguing about the effects of legalization, not legalization and a fantasy pure free market. As I have repeatedly said, there are tons of unintended consequences lurking here which are not being considered or addressed. Legalized drugs have NEVER led to a free market that I am aware of. It is contrary to the nature of the beast.

Why would drugs be immune from the laws of supply and demand?

Is alcohol outrageously priced in a free market? No.

Is tobacco? Only because of taxes.

If there were fields of marijuana being grown by anyone that wanted to, it would be cheap.

Where is there anything even resembling a free market for alcohol? You don't find free markets of things like booze, tobacco or drugs for a reason. It is contrary to human nature and the nature of government. I defy you to show me a single large scale free market of any of these things which has lasted longer than a blink.

The laws of supply/demand are always skewed when you are dealing with commodities people just can't live without. It is the same sort of problem that arises with the economics of healthcare. People will do anything not to die, addicts will do anything to get high.

 

[steveh_131]

Where is there anything even resembling a free market for alcohol? You don't find free markets of things like booze, tobacco or drugs for a reason. It is contrary to human nature and the nature of government. I defy you to show me a single large scale free market of any of these things which has lasted longer than a blink.

The laws of supply/demand are always skewed when you are dealing with commodities people just can't live without. It is the same sort of problem that arises with the economics of healthcare. People will do anything not to die, addicts will do anything to get high.

If these laws are skewed by necessity then why is it that I can fix a meal for under a dollar?

You aren't using your head.

 

[Fargo]

If these laws are skewed by necessity then why is it that I can fix a meal for under a dollar?

You aren't using your head.

Where again is that free market for alcohol and where did I say they are skewed by necessity? That is not at all what I meant by can't live without.

 

[steveh_131]

Where again is that free market for alcohol and where did I say they are skewed by necessity?

You implied that health care is expensive because people will will do anything not to die. You're wrong. People will also die without food. By your logic, shouldn't the price of food be outrageous? And yet I can cook a meal for next to nothing. Health care is expensive because the government has manipulated the market at the behest of the aha, Ama, and other lobbyists. But that is another discussion.

Alcohol is far less restricted than drugs. That's why you can get drunk for a couple bucks but have to spend ten times as much to get high on even the cheapest stuff.

We are restricting the supply. Restricting the supply of any desirable good causes prices to increase. This is economics 101. It's not really even debatable.

 

[Fargo]

You implied that health care is expensive because people will will do anything not to die. You're wrong. People will also die without food. By your logic, shouldn't the price of food be outrageous? And yet I can cook a meal for next to nothing. Health care is expensive because the government has manipulated the market at the behest of the aha, Ama, and other lobbyists. But that is another discussion.

Alcohol is far less restricted than drugs. That's why you can get drunk for a couple bucks but have to spend ten times as much to get high on even the cheapest stuff.

We are restricting the supply. Restricting the supply of any desirable good causes prices to increase. This is economics 101. It's not really even debatable.

I am not disagreeing with you about supply and demand. I am disagreeing with you that there is such a thing as a sustainable free market for drugs. Look back over history and show me one that didn't immediately fall prey to violence or governmental intervention just as Colorado did. It is part of human nature and the nature of addiction.

How can you call alcohol anything but restricted when the govt inflates the price by several orders of magnitude over actual value and regulates production strictly?

Ironically, IMO the closest you get to a free market on drugs is the black market.

 

[steveh_131]

I am not disagreeing with you about supply and demand. I am disagreeing with you that there is such a thing as a sustainable free market for drugs. Look back over history and show me one that didn't immediately fall prey to violence or governmental intervention just as Colorado did. It is part of human nature and the nature of addiction.

How can you call alcohol anything but restricted when the govt inflates the price by several orders of magnitude over actual value and regulates production strictly?

Ironically, IMO the closest you get to a free market on drugs is the black market.

Alcohol is an an example. Regulations are still too heavy, but look at how cheap it is, considering that it is more expensive and difficult to manufacture than marijuana.

Colorado is nowhere a free market. The supply is aay too restricted.

But apparently we are in agreement that government intervention is the reason for the violence.

 

[jamil]

Steve, the drug market will never be a free **legal** market. I can see a day when pot and some other milder drugs may be legal to use and sell but they will never be without regulation.

Prohibition ended > 80 years ago. There's no end in sight for its regulation.

You can argue all you want about how you think it should to be. But you're not the only one who gets to think. Other people get to have their own thoughts and opinions too. People have different priorities, concerns, fears, beliefs and experiences which drive those things. It's the nature of dense population. The cumulative opinion of Americans seems to favor legalization of pot, but only with regulation. If pot or any other recreational drugs become legal nationwide, there still won't be a free market for them, ever because most people want them regulated.

 

[steveh_131]

Steve, the drug market will never be a free **legal** market. I can see a day when pot and some other milder drugs may be legal to use and sell but they will never be without regulation.

Did I say that it would be? No, I didn't. That doesn't mean we should stop advocating for less regulation. We have obviously made progress.

Prohibition ended > 80 years ago. There's no end in sight for its regulation.

Agreed. Our nation is packed with people who are too scared to eat a tomato without FDA approval.

Nevertheless, decreasing its regulation has led to a market with a variety of providers, less restricted supply and less restricted access. And as predicted, the vast black market and associated violent crime dwindled to nothing.

You can argue all you want about how you think it should to be. But you're not the only one who gets to think. Other people get to have their own thoughts and opinions too. People have different priorities, concerns, fears, beliefs and experiences which drive those things. It's the nature of dense population. The cumulative opinion of Americans seems to favor legalization of pot, but only with regulation. If pot or any other recreational drugs become legal nationwide, there still won't be a free market for them, ever because most people want them regulated.

How is your prediction relevant to the discussion at hand?

Fargo keeps changing his argument, and I've simply followed along.

He asserted that despite the 'free market' in Colorado, prices have not dropped. He's right that they haven't dropped. He's wrong that it is anything approaching a 'free market'.

Colorado was a step in the right direction. People have a legal avenue to obtain marijuana and can do so without the police state curb stomping them. More liberty is always a good thing.

Colorado did very little to put a stop to the black market. The legal path to obtaining it is quite narrow. Anyone who can't fit in this path still has to turn to the black market. Anyone who can't afford black market prices is encouraged to resort to theft.

 

[Fargo]

Fargo keeps changing his argument, and I've simply followed along.

He asserted that despite the 'free market' in Colorado, prices have not dropped. He's right that they haven't dropped. He's wrong that it is anything approaching a 'free market'.

With all due respect Steve, you really need to go back and read what I wrote because you are blatantly misrepresenting it. I asked you what "legalization" had done to the pot price in Colorado, not what the "free market" had done. You then substituted the "free market" for "legalization" when they are totally different things. I NEVER said or implied in any way that Colorado is a free pot market. In fact, I've said the direct opposite. I'm going to quote myself:

Riddle me this, did the effective price of weed go up or down in Colorado upon legalization?

My argument has consistently been that a free drug market is fantasy because it runs contrary to human nature and the nature of addition. I'm going to quote myself again:

I thought we were arguing about the effects of legalization, not legalization and a fantasy pure free market. As I have repeatedly said, there are tons of unintended consequences lurking here which are not being considered or addressed. Legalized drugs have NEVER led to a free market that I am aware of. It is contrary to the nature of the beast.

You are the one who brought up the free market when we were discussing legalization, not me. Go back and read it. You are ascribing me positions I never took and positions directly opposed to those I have. You then have the gall to accuse me of changing my argument. I don't understand why.

 

[steveh_131]

With all due respect Steve, you really need to go back and read what I wrote because you are blatantly misrepresenting it. I asked you what "legalization" had done to the pot price in Colorado, not what the "free market" had done. You then substituted the "free market" for "legalization" when they are totally different things. I'm going to quote myself.

Ok, fair enough. Maybe I misunderstood you.

What, exactly, is your point?

You said that people will steal to feed their habits regardless of where they purchase it.

I pointed out that if deregulating causes prices to drop by 80%, then it would require 80% less crime to feed a habit.

You pointed out that prices didn't drop in Colorado, implying that prohibition isn't the reason for high prices, but some sort of necessity.

I pointed out that Colorado's market is no more economically free than it was before, which is why prices haven't dropped and the black market still thrives.

Here is reality: Drug prices are high because the supply is restricted. Period. It has nothing to do with the nature of addiction. It is simple supply and demand. Allowing people to smoke it doesn't make the supply any less restricted. There may be fewer people in prison, which is good, but prices will not drop and the black market will not disappear.

 

[Fargo]

Ok, fair enough. Maybe I misunderstood you.

What, exactly, is your point?

You said that people will steal to feed their habits regardless of where they purchase it.

I pointed out that if deregulating causes prices to drop by 80%, then it would require 80% less crime to feed a habit.

You pointed out that prices didn't drop in Colorado, implying that prohibition isn't the reason for high prices, but some sort of necessity.

I pointed out that Colorado's market is no more economically free than it was before, which is why prices haven't dropped and the black market still thrives.

Here is reality: Drug prices are high because the supply is restricted. Period. It has nothing to do with the nature of addiction. It is simple supply and demand. Allowing people to smoke it doesn't make the supply any less restricted. There may be fewer people in prison, which is good, but prices will not drop and the black market will not disappear.

My points are a few:

1. Simple legalization does not automatically result is diminished prices because drug markets virtually never operate as free markets.

2. Drug markets do not operate as free markets because it is against human nature. You have a population of desperate addicts who will do anything to get a product and who are at the mercy of the supply. This breeds violence and resulting governmental control. Criminals want to take advantage of the addicts and addicts will do violence get their high. This inevitably results in governmental interference and regulation. This has been a repeating story though out history. Society has never tolerated a true free market of drugs for any significant period of time. There is a reason for this. Its not something I'm arguing some principle about, it is just kinda the way things have always gone.

3. Legalization will almost certainly bring with it some unintended consequences which are not predictable upon purely economic principles. These potential consequences and costs should not be ignored.

Thats about it. I don't think it is anything too crazy.