The War On Drugs?

The war on drugs will never be one simply because of the huge amount of money involved. and those at the top will never serve time because of the huge amount of money they've got.

0 Replies

But criminalization does give them a tremendous amount of monopoly power. Good deal, it is.

(This question's been done a number of times, so don't be surprised if you get some flippant answers. My opinion is that its a ridiculous, can't-win enterprise that wastes money, resources, and lives and profits only the people who make money from fighting it, be they dealers, suppliers, or politicians who use it as political capital.)

0 Replies

I'll tell you one thing the "war on drugs" has done -- it has managed to kick the price of marijuana up from about $20 per ounce to over $400 right now.

Think about it: Marijuana has the intrinsic value of grass clippings -- yet it is selling for more than gold!

What a bunch of geniuses.

0 Replies

Oh...and it has made cocaine and heroin cheaper, more plentiful and easier to obtain.

That is just great for our young people!

Not!

0 Replies

The war on drugs will never be won as long as there's a market for them. Which there is. Attacking the source is a joke...

0 Replies

Frank, the young people get plenty of Ritalin legally pushed to them, they don't need the adult form.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'll tell you one thing the "war on drugs" has done -- it has managed to kick the price of marijuana up from about $20 per ounce to over $400 right now.

Think about it: Marijuana has the intrinsic value of grass clippings -- yet it is selling for more than gold!

What a bunch of geniuses.

Yes, and the war on organized crime has, no doubt, driven the price of contract murders through the roof. What a pity.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I'll tell you one thing the "war on drugs" has done -- it has managed to kick the price of marijuana up from about $20 per ounce to over $400 right now.

Think about it: Marijuana has the intrinsic value of grass clippings -- yet it is selling for more than gold!

What a bunch of geniuses.

Yes, and the war on organized crime has, no doubt, driven the price of contract murders through the roof. What a pity.

Not at all up to your usual standard, Joe.

0 Replies

Joe's right Frank. Think about it for a second. The price arguments are fallacious red herrings and he's pointed it out nicely.

I disagree with him on the overall issue of the war on drugs but he is right about this.

0 Replies

Quote:

Frank, the young people get plenty of Ritalin legally pushed to them, they don't need the adult form.

BrandX - the war on drugs does not make the illegal drugs less available to children; it makes them more available. I was buying and smoking pot before I could find a store clerk who would sell be cigarettes, to say nothing of the relative difficulties of obtaining pot (or acid, or crank, or...) and alcohol.

0 Replies

Oh, I agree with you, but now we're teaching the kids they need drugs to function, prescribed far too often. I know it's a whole different subject, sorry for the highjack.

0 Replies

I'm a bit of a hijacker myself!

craven wrote:

Joe's right Frank. Think about it for a second. The price arguments are fallacious red herrings and he's pointed it out nicely.

Not insofar as price is an indicator of the market forces that make the illicit drug trade so profitable -- and subsequently dangerous both to those involved and to those caught in the proverbial crossfire -- in the first place.

I'd posit gold as an analogy: its value is artificially inflated (though for different reasons, as its scarcity is genuine), and so there has developed around procuring it a culture of exploitation that benefits only those who profit monetarily from it.

0 Replies

Craven

The "price arguments" weren't arguments -- they were observations.

And perhaps a bit of consumer bitching...

...although I am sure you and everyone else realizes that I would never touch the stuff!!!

In the meantime, Patiodog's comments are well taken.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Not insofar as price is an indicator of the market forces that make the illicit drug trade so profitable -- and subsequently dangerous both to those involved and to those caught in the proverbial crossfire -- in the first place.

Making murder illegal has made it a tricky dangerous business as well, as Joe notes. What you reference is an inevitable consequence of prohibition.

Quote:

I'd posit gold as an analogy: its value is artificially inflated (though for different reasons, as its scarcity is genuine), and so there has developed around procuring it a culture of exploitation that benefits only those who profit monetarily from it.

Yes, but this is a no-brainer. The same thing has happened with nuclear materials. The restrictions on them have driven the prices up. The same thing happens when you outlaw guns, the price goes up and such.

Ultimately Joe is right in that the crucial question is whether the item should be prohibited as making it illegal has predictable consequences.

Naming those consequences sounds good if you are already convinced but Joe used a very easy example where we are perfectly willing to have said consequences, bringing the discussion back to where it belongs: whether the prohibition has merit.

0 Replies

Quote:

whether the prohibition has merit.

In the case of murder, yes: the behavior it is designed to prohibit is more deleterious than the adverse consequences (whatever they may be) of its prohibition.

In the case of drugs, no: the behavior it is designed to prohibit is not as harmful as the effects of its prohibition, especially in light of the fact that prohibition does not eradicate (or even much reduce) use.

The two are qualitively different: it is easy to demonstrate ethically why murder is wrong, and so the vast majority of people are not inclined to commit murder. It is not so easy to demonstrate ethically why drug use is wrong, which is why such a large portion of the population does use some drug or other, legal or illegal.

0 Replies

craven: That was my point exactly. A society may deem an activity or a product so undesirable that it attempts to make it unavailable -- at any price. That, in turn, restricts supply and inflates the price of the activity or product. But the price that a prohibited product may command on the black market has no bearing on whether that product should have been outlawed in the first place.

Frank: I can understand that your comments were really in the nature of a consumer complaint. I feel the same way about California condor egg omelettes. I forgive you.

patiodog wrote:

I'd posit gold as an analogy: its value is artificially inflated (though for different reasons, as its scarcity is genuine), and so there has developed around procuring it a culture of exploitation that benefits only those who profit monetarily from it.

Gold's value is not artificially inflated. If we accept that gold is a scarce commodity in high demand, its value reflects its natural scarcity. As for your comments on the "culture of exploitation," you've merely provided a thumbnail description of capitalism.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

The two are qualitively different: it is easy to demonstrate ethically why murder is wrong, and so the vast majority of people are not inclined to commit murder. It is not so easy to demonstrate ethically why drug use is wrong, which is why such a large portion of the population does use some drug or other, legal or illegal.

Oh, I agree on that. But now we have strayed from the fallacy. We are discussing the merit of the prohibition.

I don;t think marijuana use has enough of a detrimental effect on society to combat it (and to suffer the consequences of prohibition). But there are people (like Joe, for example) who disagree with me on the detrimental effect of merijuana on society.

0 Replies

Quote:

Gold's value is not artificially inflated. If we accept that gold is a scarce commodity in high demand, its value reflects its natural scarcity. As for the "culture of exploitation," you've merely provided a thumbnail description of capitalism.

Fair enough. I merely meant that it's price does not reflect its utility, but that's a very subjective sort of observation.

Quote:

But now we have strayed from the fallacy.

I'm not so sure about that. Seems to me the question of whether legislation is meant to protect people from each other or from themselves is pretty relevant to the question at hand, and to the viability of effective enforcement. That is to say, enforcement of a law is going to be much easier if the bulk of the population thinks that law is fair and just.

0 Replies

Either way, it will still come down to marijuana's detriments and if they are deemed enough to justify prohibition or not. I don't think they are, but for someone who does think they are the inevitable effect of prohibition is irrelevant.

To me, the criminalization of marijuana is not justified. In my opinion it does more harm than good. But the real difference in opinion between myself and those who support criminalization is in marijuana's detriments to individuals and society.

In any case, what I really wanted to say is that Joe was up to his usual high standards. He made a valid point. Even though the effects of criminalization aren't irrelevant he's right in that it's only relevant to those who are of the opinion that marijuana's detriment is not worth the prohibitionary consequences.

0 Replies

The War On Drugs?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know