Words simply fail me- - Page 3

Ghoulish Delight · 03-11-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousepod

As far as I can recall, there haven't been any legal shooting galleries (I'm not talking Frontierland) or crack houses ever in the US, so the parallel to prohibition doesn't exactly work for me. As a voter, I'd need to know what the plan was before I cast my ballot...

Well there WAS a time when these drugs were legal. But no, there hasn't been a formal system before. And clearly there would have to be a plan, obviously a free-for-all wouldn't work, and would never happen in this day and age.

So of course it will take time, effort, and planning. It wouldn't be a instant fix. But a long term effective plan is better than the costly and ineffective war on drugs which creates more problems than it solves.

mousepod · 03-11-2005, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Well there WAS a time when these drugs were legal. But no, there hasn't been a formal system before. And clearly there would have to be a plan, obviously a free-for-all wouldn't work, and would never happen in this day and age.

So of course it will take time, effort, and planning. It wouldn't be a instant fix. But a long term effective plan is better than the costly and ineffective war on drugs which creates more problems than it solves.

...and so ends my argument. I'm with you 100%.

scaeagles · 03-11-2005, 02:28 PM

I have never been one that believes that the legalization of drugs cures a multiple of ills. There will most certainly still be theft involved. There will be a huge black market. Drug dealers will not simply go quietly into the night because there are other outlets. I see them turning to other crime to finance their lifestyle - maybe protection rackets on stores which would sell the newly legalized drugs. Drug users will be just as violent to satisfy their addiction. As alcohol cannot be sold to minors, I'm sure drugs would fall under the same restrictions, so there is certainly still an illegal market that would be filled....illegally. Food stamps would still be sold for pennies on the dollar for cash to buy drugs, etc, etc, etc.

The problems would be different, but not necessarily reduced. Perhaps 20-30 years after legalization there might be some relief from the crime and violence associated with it, but certainly nothing in the short term.

Take prostitution in Nevada. Legal in some areas, but legal brothels are far more expensive than the average hooker walking down the strip in Vegas, I'm sure. I would not be in the least surprised if regulation, testing for purity and content, blah, blah, blah, would make a hit of crack more expensive at the local Walgreens than on the street. And I would not sit quietly if my tax dollars were used to fund one hit for one addict, and I could see that happening.

Ghoulish Delight · 03-11-2005, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The problems would be different, but not necessarily reduced. Perhaps 20-30 years after legalization there might be some relief from the crime and violence associated with it, but certainly nothing in the short term.

Your point? Yes, it will take time. I disagree with it taking that long because, among other things, with the isntant decrease in spending in enforcement, combined with increased revenue from taxes, efforts and resources can be concentrated on solving those remaining issues.[/quote]

Quote:

Take prostitution in Nevada. Legal in some areas, but legal brothels are far more expensive than the average hooker walking down the strip in Vegas, I'm sure. I would not be in the least surprised if regulation, testing for purity and content, blah, blah, blah, would make a hit of crack more expensive at the local Walgreens than on the street.

Supply and demand. Legalized prostitution doesn't significantly increase the supply. You aren't going to suddenly have women clamboring to sell their bodies just because it's legal. Yes, there will be more, but you're right, not enough to offset the increased costs of running a legitimate business as opposed to walking the streets. But drugs? The most popular is a weed. Legalize it and California alone could probably supply the whole nation it grows so well out here. Others can be mass produced with relative ease. There would be no problem in increasing the supply to offset regulation costs.

Nephythys · 03-11-2005, 02:40 PM

Not sure what is wrong with the way I phrased anything- considering all I said was I would not want my tax dollars going for this.

BarTopDancer · 03-11-2005, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Not sure what is wrong with the way I phrased anything- considering all I said was I would not want my tax dollars going for this.

You phrased it quite well. Straight to the point and stating your opnion on it. I see nothing wrong with the posts I've seen.

scaeagles · 03-11-2005, 03:55 PM

GD, you are making the assumption that demand increases because it becomes legal. I reject that. There is not any profit for the drug companies in mass producing enough, say, ecstacy. Users use whether it is legal or not, and I doubt any significant increase in users will be evident if legalized. Therefore, supply and demand doesn't work as you are thinking it will.

Also, i doubt any drug companies would mass produce these types of drugs. Can you imagine the lawsuits they would open themselves to?

Ghoulish Delight · 03-11-2005, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

There is not any profit for the drug companies in mass producing enough, say, ecstacy.

Huh? How is there no profit in meeting demand? By definition, there's always profit in supplying the demand.

No one's sued alcohol companies for drunk driving deaths, why would drug companies be liabel for anything?

scaeagles · 03-11-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Huh? How is there no profit in meeting demand? By definition, there's always profit in supplying the demand.

My assertion is that demand does not increase enough to make it worth while for the drug companies.

Also, I'm sure Columbian drug Lords and the Mexican cartels will really be happy allowing their business to go legit. There is no way they will stop exporting cocaine, basically saturating the marketplace and driving prices down so that it will be unprofitable for legit companies.

Those who are producing and selling illegally will not stop doing it illegally simply because there are legal outlets. They want their profits and will be unwilling to share them with drug companies. I would even predict a certain amount of violence directed at board members of companies that would produce. Why do Columbian drug lords assassinate judges in Columbia? Because the judges enforce laws that cut into their bottom line. These people are evil and ruthless and it is about the money. If the demand does not completely dry up, they will be fighting for their illegal profits whether it is legal or not.

Cadaverous Pallor · 03-11-2005, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Those who are producing and selling illegally will not stop doing it illegally simply because there are legal outlets.

Bootleg alcohol stopped when Prohibition was tossed.

If the drug cartel starts making money without blood, they'll be happy, I think.

03-11-2005, 02:28 PM	#3
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I have never been one that believes that the legalization of drugs cures a multiple of ills. There will most certainly still be theft involved. There will be a huge black market. Drug dealers will not simply go quietly into the night because there are other outlets. I see them turning to other crime to finance their lifestyle - maybe protection rackets on stores which would sell the newly legalized drugs. Drug users will be just as violent to satisfy their addiction. As alcohol cannot be sold to minors, I'm sure drugs would fall under the same restrictions, so there is certainly still an illegal market that would be filled....illegally. Food stamps would still be sold for pennies on the dollar for cash to buy drugs, etc, etc, etc. The problems would be different, but not necessarily reduced. Perhaps 20-30 years after legalization there might be some relief from the crime and violence associated with it, but certainly nothing in the short term. Take prostitution in Nevada. Legal in some areas, but legal brothels are far more expensive than the average hooker walking down the strip in Vegas, I'm sure. I would not be in the least surprised if regulation, testing for purity and content, blah, blah, blah, would make a hit of crack more expensive at the local Walgreens than on the street. And I would not sit quietly if my tax dollars were used to fund one hit for one addict, and I could see that happening.
	Submit to Quotes

03-11-2005, 02:40 PM	#5
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	Not sure what is wrong with the way I phrased anything- considering all I said was I would not want my tax dollars going for this.
	Submit to Quotes

03-11-2005, 03:55 PM	#7
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	GD, you are making the assumption that demand increases because it becomes legal. I reject that. There is not any profit for the drug companies in mass producing enough, say, ecstacy. Users use whether it is legal or not, and I doubt any significant increase in users will be evident if legalized. Therefore, supply and demand doesn't work as you are thinking it will. Also, i doubt any drug companies would mass produce these types of drugs. Can you imagine the lawsuits they would open themselves to?
	Submit to Quotes