@Dewey phil,
[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.
Quote: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."
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.