Extortion

Maybe they ought to just legalize the stuff and get it over with. Take the criminal element out of it. Not a whole lot different than booze, health wise, probably. Slightly off center of your topic MFTP but, just thought i would throw that one in.

I couldn't agree more. There is HUGE difference between something permitted under the regulation and something which can be done because there simply are no regulations. Its analagous to the difference between rights nand privilages. Sure, the Soviet government might allow you to publish a book, but then again, depending on who's at the controls any given day, they might decide to send you to Siberia and burn your book. If the government has the power to determine what the government's powers are, the govenment is tyrannical, even if citizens are allowed to vote, write books, move around freely, etc. Rights have to be absolute ('You are free to speak in any manner you like' versus 'You are free to speak in any manner you like, unless by doing so you are hurting the public interest, as defined by the government') or completely meaningless: i.e. privilages.

And marijuana should be legalized. I think any sane, non-self-righteous person would agree with that. Sadly, that leaves out most of our elected leaders. If anyone here disagrees, show yourself. I LOVE that debate, its so conclusive and easy.

After telling his story, Mr. Fights the Power rightly anticipated that some of us might not figure out who the characters in his story really are. I know because I didn't figure it out until he told us..

It wasn't entirely my fault; there were some false clues. How could I possibly have guessed that Mark, the "businessman and entrepreneur" would turn out to be a drug dealer, one of those shady characters we see hanging out in the shadows of local parks. How could any reasonably objective and informed American citizen expect the "armed group of thugs" who are persecuting poor Mark to be identified as our democratic government.

The objection to Massachusetts' law because "it does not create a free market" is a matter of opinion. It'is a political or ideological viewpoint, like supply-side economics, not very convincing in this context.

I read the article attached to Mr. Fight the Power's post and a few other pro and con articles. I think the legislation is a win-win accomplishment and note it was supported by a majority of Massachusetts citizens -- democracy in action.

Just one more thing, in the words of one of my sources:

People assume it's just aging hippies and college students who are growing and selling the stuff, but in fact, like with all narcotics, big cartels are the main players and there is significant violence involved, both in its production and its distribution."

[quote=Dewey]How could any reasonably objective and informed American citizen expect the "armed group of thugs" who are persecuting poor Mark to be identified as our democratic government.The objection to Massachusetts' law because "it does not create a free market" is a matter of opinion. It'is a political or ideological viewpoint, like supply-side economics, not very convincing in this context.[/quote]

I won't blame you for not getting the metaphor from the start, but the police forces fighting the 'war on drugs' are indeed armed thugs as far as I'm concerned. They are brutal, treacherous, and do not follow the laws, especially the constitution. You can disagree with the idea that not having a free market is a bad thing, but any market which is regulated (which includes any market that is prohibited altogether, like with marijuana) is by definition not a free market.



Why do cartels and not hippies control the drug market, and why do these cartels use such horrific violence and corruption to achieve their aims? Is it because of the marijuana itself; or because of the character flaws inherent in anyone who smokes? No, it is precisely and only because marijuana is illegal. In any black market, where participants cannot report instances in which they were victims of violence, or coersion, or theft, the rules will be made by the strong; people are actively enouraged to use force. The hippies have been driven out of the market by force. Why is it that there's no violence or gang activity associated with the cinnamon market? Because cinnamon is not illegal. Why did there suddenly appear a class of hardened, organized criminals in the 1920's and 30's? Because alcohol was made illegal. It is a logical neccessity for the prohibition of anything to create violence and related crimes.

1) The government cannot ever, in any case, completely destroy a market for something popular, whether drugs now, or British manufactures in Napoleon's failed continential system.

2) The stricter the enforcement, the lower the supply, but the supply will never reach zero.

3) This simply makes the prices rise, and the business more lucrative, which creates a greater incentive for violence (fighting over street corners e,g,) and makes risks more reasonable (the mexican cartels can afford to lose 50% of their shipment to DEA because the profits are so huge, made greater in fact with every seizure by the DEA).

5) Hgher prices also drive addicts and general users to crime to pay for their habits.

6) The very fact that drugs are illegal means that there can be no quality control, either from direct regulation by the FDA e.g., or from the restraining effect of lawsuits for damages caused by tainted products. How many people die or are seriously injured every year because they bought something that was stronger than they thought, or which was laced with something else?

So, have I missed any of the ill effects of drugs on society? I obviously ignored the actual, biological effects of drug use, but that's because those effects will exist regardless of the legality of the drug. The argument that prohibition curbs use or that legalization would increase use is pure speculation. If you've ever been to high school or college, you'll witness firsthand how little deterance the illegality of drugs produce. Moroever, for a real example, when marijuana was legalized in Amsterdam, there was no noticable iincrease in use. I think I've proved that all the ill effects of drugs are in fact the result of the prohibition of drugs, with the exception of the biological effects, which exist either way.

Now, for the finale. The U.S. spends about $15 billion per year fighting the war on drugs (almost entirely marijuana), housing prisoners convicted of possesion, paying court costs, etc. Add that to the potential revenue from taxing marijuana, putting aside the other drugs for the moment, and the government's finances, and the economy in general, would be significantly benefited from legalization.

BrightNoon, we appear from your last post to differ only with respect to the free market matter. I, too, favor the legalization of marijuana.

Ahh, I just realized that. :nonooo: I wasted some time I guess.