Nope, that's just what logically follows. If drugs are illegal, violent criminals will control their trade. So, if you think legalizing drugs is bad, you think letting drug gangs control their trade is better.
Last edited:
End the War on Drugs
- Thread starter dtugg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- drug laws war on drugs
Nope, that's just what logically follows. If drugs are illegal, violent criminals will control their trade. So, if you think legalizing drugs is bad, you think letting drug gangs control their trade is better.
It's still a strawman.
I said I supported decriminalisation of certain drugs in certain circumstances. In any case, puppycow put it better than me. If your position is so logical, why has it never been tried?
figarot
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 5, 2003
- Messages
- 2,313
if drugs were legalised, what's to stop the big criminal drug cartels from going legit? Getting the proper business lisences and selling just as much drugs if not more than they are doing now? They already have a client base. They, I suspect, would be the big-pharma's biggest competitors and would not be scared of using various forms of intimidation to stay at the top. I'm not sure legalising drugs would curb drug violence one bit, perhaps it'd even escalate a notch...
And with that, you would still have criminal gangs controlling their sale.
Because most people are not logical when it comes to drugs.
After alcohol prohibition, did guys like Al Capone go legit and continue to control the sale of alcohol? Same thing. And there is no reason that if drugs were legalized, that the government couldn't be careful to whom it gave licenses to produce and sell.
Last edited:
Even if your position were logical (and I don't believe it is), it is a utopian dream with no chance at all of being implemented.
I never said I thought it would happen.
figarot
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 5, 2003
- Messages
- 2,313
I think Al got done in for tax evasion while prohibition was still going on, and I think the example of prohibition is a lightweight one as it's only alcohol that once more became legal. Legalising all drugs (nothing against having weed, acid or even dmt legalised but heroin...) would be far more incentive for today's big drug lords to continue making their money off the same product, albeit legally, and any drug lord worth his saltshaker has the political connections to get enough lisences to open an entire franchises of funk stores across the world to sell their goodies....
I was talking about gangsters in general.
I don't see how that makes any difference. During prohibition, gangsters controlled the distribution and sale of alcohol. Afterwards, they did not.
Actually, I think that if drugs were legal, they would have much less incentive to sell them. These people are in the drug business because of the obscene profit margins they make. Drugs cost almost nothing to make but can be sold at outrageous prices because of they are illegal. Make drugs legal, and they would be sold for much cheaper so there would be much less money to make.
And beside, there is no way that drug lords could just go legit if drugs were legalized. The Mexican drug lords that control the importation of most of the drugs into the US are all known to the authorities and they are all murderers. It's not as if these crimes would be forgotten if drugs were suddenly legal.
Even if the existing criminals did move into the legal trade after any reversal of prohibition, so what? Even if they are still criminals I can see no reason to presume their crimes would be of the same sort. Fraud and tax evasion are already part of the repertoire and they carry much less risk than murder etc. I can see no good reason why they would not run their businesses like other business people: and where they commit crimes they would be like other business people's crimes. This argument seems to rest on the notion that criminals are a different species: but mostly that is not true, so far as I can see.
It might take some time but it seems to me that even in a well organised criminal set up people prefer less risk: so at least in second and third generations the people would prefer to make their profits in the usual way. Of course if it is not well organised they might well find that market share is problematic when big companies move into the field: but so long as there is little scope for illegal trade, them's the breaks.
Much of the damage done by drugs is a function of its price and illegality. Theft and burglary and many other things follow from those features. Child neglect is also far more difficult to deal with because the underlying cause is hidden so far as possible, and addicts have less time to do ordinary things cos they spend so much of their energy getting and paying for drugs. The implications of neglect as a direct result of being high are important: as they are for alcohol. But those other features are much less evident in cases of alcohol addiction: and while the impact of family secrets is strong whatever the problem, it is worsened where the child is conscious that discovery will lead to jail for the parent. That, at least, is my experience
It is true that there might be more addicts if heroin etc were readily available: and addiction is certainly something to be avoided if we can. But it does not seem that prohibition has that effect: certainly the drug problem in this country (as it relates to seriously addictive drugs) has worsened rapidly in the last couple of decades. While there are undoubtedly many factors in this I cannot but think that the 1971 act should at least be considered as a contributory cause.
It might take some time but it seems to me that even in a well organised criminal set up people prefer less risk: so at least in second and third generations the people would prefer to make their profits in the usual way. Of course if it is not well organised they might well find that market share is problematic when big companies move into the field: but so long as there is little scope for illegal trade, them's the breaks.
Much of the damage done by drugs is a function of its price and illegality. Theft and burglary and many other things follow from those features. Child neglect is also far more difficult to deal with because the underlying cause is hidden so far as possible, and addicts have less time to do ordinary things cos they spend so much of their energy getting and paying for drugs. The implications of neglect as a direct result of being high are important: as they are for alcohol. But those other features are much less evident in cases of alcohol addiction: and while the impact of family secrets is strong whatever the problem, it is worsened where the child is conscious that discovery will lead to jail for the parent. That, at least, is my experience
It is true that there might be more addicts if heroin etc were readily available: and addiction is certainly something to be avoided if we can. But it does not seem that prohibition has that effect: certainly the drug problem in this country (as it relates to seriously addictive drugs) has worsened rapidly in the last couple of decades. While there are undoubtedly many factors in this I cannot but think that the 1971 act should at least be considered as a contributory cause.
Good point.
EverLastingGodStopper
probably lurking
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 185
Sell them to whom? If marijuana users were permitted to grow their own marijuana, those users would have no reason to ever darken a drug dealer's door again. I'm sure that marijuana legalization will begin with the commercial production and retail sale of the drug, replacing thugs, gangs and cartels with legitimate dealers of the drug. But when marijuana users themselves have the legal right to grow and maintain their own supply, the money will go to horticulture suppliers, seed suppliers, and other businesses that won't make as much money from the trade.
In the news over the past year, some conservatives have voiced support for marijuana legalization because they see the retail sale and taxation of marijuana as a means to increase cash flow to the government's coffers. This is why I think that any form of legalization would first have some extremely restrictive controls in order to ensure that the government and big business makes a huge profit from the sales of marijuana. If marijuana is legalized in this way, then the next legalization fight may be for personal pot gardens.
As far as drugs that you can't grow in your garden go, the thugs, gangs and cartels can be booted from the business if hard drug users are permitted to seek medical assistance for obtaining their supply and maintaining their health, with as many opportunities for rehabilitation and treatment as possible, but still not forcing them to seek unlawful means to find drugs as they do now.
I'm expecting to see marijuana decriminalization (if not legalization) in my lifetime, but the government should also move to direct hard drug users toward safe legal methods of using drugs (can such things even exist? We would need hard science to know for sure).
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
It was tried up until the early part of the 20th century.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Except that the profits would fall drastically, and worse you don't get to gun down your competitors and thus can't monopolize.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Hey, I agree that the price of drugs is increased by the fact that they're currently illegal.
But, isn't it possible that if drugs were legal, then usage might increase, not necessarily from people saying "Its ok to use now that its legal", but from people who are now able to afford the drugs and/or use more?
After all, there have been at least a few studies that show cigarette use increases as prices go down. Why would we expect anything different if drugs are legalized and prices for them drop?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16565459
Now, I know some people have suggested that the government could simply implement a tax to ensure the costs remain high; however, all that will do is allow a 'black market' to form, where people are selling a drug which is now legal but with no taxes, as opposed to selling a drug that was totally illegal.
(For the record, I'm not opposed to the idea of liberalizing drug laws; however, I do recognize that there are some "issues" that need to be considered before doing so.)
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Because those who want decriminalisation and/or legalization aren't organized, aren't funded and don't do much other than just gab about it.
Wonder why that is?
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Probably not. But then, who knows? It probably depends on what drugs are legalized, how the policy is enacted, and what other changes are made in society at the same time.
(Like I suggested before, I'm not necessarily trying to condemn the idea of drug law liberalization; I just don't like the way that people pushing for such laws tend to ignore possible problems that might result.)
Not sure if that's the best comparison, for a number of reasons:
- While the Netherlands does have a more 'liberalized' policy towards marijuana, that doesn't necessarily mean that pot is totally legal. There are still some controls placed on it
- Marijuana (because of the ease by which its grown) is already a pretty cheap drug. The same rules may not apply to things like heroin or cocaine.
- The differences between the U.S. and Holland marijuana use may also be due to cultural differences between the countries as well as price.
I think we are on the same page.
I am sure that legalising drugs will cause its own problems, one of them being an increase in use, another being DUI check of motorists.
There are quite likely huge cultural differences in drug use. (I did say BTW.)
What it does show is that it is possible to have somewhat legal marijuana without the population automatically descending into the dope cloud.