Drug Legalization: Yea or Nay?
We had a pretty interesting discussion the other day about Mexico and how large a part of the problem drugs are. Ever since, I've been curious about what the consensus would be on our current drug policy here on WSO. As if on cue, Harvard Econ prof Jeffrey Miron sat down with the TechTicker guys and laid out the case for full legalization:
So, where do you guys fall on this issue? I'm sure most of you know that I consider drug laws not only utterly ridiculous, but completely unconstitutional (not that what I think matters in the least). I'm interested to hear what you think.
If you think drugs should be legalized across the board, say so. If you think they should remain illegal, explain why. If you're in favor of some drugs being legal (pot, for example) but other drugs remaining illegal, tell us where you draw the line and why.
With California decriminalizing marijuana recently, I have a feeling we're on the cusp of a major shift in drug policy. Which way do you think it should go and why?
Comments
There is some study that I
There is some study that I read a few weeks ago that for every dollar of tax revenue the government would get from legalizing drugs, they would spend 5-7 on increased healthcare costs. This particular study didn't include the affect on law enforcement as relates to how many would lose their jobs, how much governments would save in law enforcement salary, equipment, insurance, etc. I would be interested to see a comprehensive study that, somehow, at least attempted to address these aspects of the issue.
That being said, I personally think that the use of drugs shouldn't be wholly legal or illegal. I think one would have to admit the possibility that legalizing drugs would open the gates to a new portion of the population becoming addicted to drugs and using disproportionate amounts of their income towards their habit at the expense of other obligations. Realistically, I think the uptick in drug use would obviously lead to more needs in the form of addiction education and rehab facilities.
After all that, to answer your question I would advocate for a step by step type process. Weed being first because I think we can all agree that pot has been proven to be fairly safe. Then move on to other drugs, substances, etc. I would also advocate for taxes on these things greater than or equal to the taxes on cigarettes.
I do think that if California is able to legalize marijuana and do so successfully without far reaching effects on the population at large and use prop 19 to to raise huge tax revenue (especially in light of record deficits in that state) then there will be a massive push towards legalization on a macro level.
Side note: If this happens I am going to put every fucking penny I have into Frito-Lay stock.
Just my .02 cents
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
I have to take issue with the
I have to take issue with the notion of legalizing for the express purpose of generating tax revenue. I hear the argument all over the place. In fact, it's a large part of the argument in favor in California right now. Look at all the tax money we can raise by making pot legal and then taxing the hell out of it.
It amounts to a moral violation on par with making something that grows in the ground "illegal" in the first place. If you don't have the right to make something natural illegal, then you certainly don't have the right to tax it just because you suddenly pulled your head out of your ass.
Are you taxed on the tomatoes you grow in your garden?
I'm not saying commercially procured drugs shouldn't be subject to the same local sales tax that every other product incurs, but to level an additional unconstitutional tariff on a product that amounts to nothing more than a "sin" tax is ludicrous. And before you ask, yes, I feel the same way about excess taxes on tobacco and alcohol.
Edmundo Braverman wrote: I
I have to take issue with the notion of legalizing for the express purpose of generating tax revenue. I hear the argument all over the place. In fact, it's a large part of the argument in favor in California right now. Look at all the tax money we can raise by making pot legal and then taxing the hell out of it.
It amounts to a moral violation on par with making something that grows in the ground "illegal" in the first place. If you don't have the right to make something natural illegal, then you certainly don't have the right to tax it just because you suddenly pulled your head out of your ass.
Are you taxed on the tomatoes you grow in your garden?
I'm not saying commercially procured drugs shouldn't be subject to the same local sales tax that every other product incurs, but to level an additional unconstitutional tariff on a product that amounts to nothing more than a "sin" tax is ludicrous. And before you ask, yes, I feel the same way about excess taxes on tobacco and alcohol.
Valid point to be sure, but I would respond thusly. At what point does the 'fruit of the earth' argument no longer apply? Weed, yes, absolutely. You can walk outside, pick it up and smoke it (basically). I think one would also have to include mushrooms in that category as well. But what about Cocaine? Comes from a plant but requires more processing. Or opium? Then at the opposite end of the spectrum the ecstasy and LSD stuff. I think the sin tax is a fantastic point and, admittedly, not something I have really considered to this point. I do enjoy a good cigar at times as well as dip whenever I feel like I can get away with it so I am acutely aware of the tobacco tax
Essentially what I am asking, since you are much more informed than myself on the issue, how would you draw the line so to speak on what would or wouldn't be legal?
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
Since no man has the natural
Since no man has the natural right to tell any other man what he can and cannot ingest, nothing would be illegal. Let's not forget that the Declaration of Independence itself is written on hemp paper.
Where the law enters is what happens if someone under the influence impedes the rights of or causes injury to others. We have well established (though not particularly well thought out) laws in place to deter driving around while fucked-in-half drunk, so the same would apply.
I am much more in favor of a zero-tolerance DUI law (you blow even .01 and you go to jail for a year, do not pass Go, do not collect $200) than the current nebulous .08 policy that only benefits the cops, courts, and lawyers. In my perfect world, the law would apply equally to drug infractions.
We waste so much money a year
We waste so much money a year on inmates in our prisons for petty drug crimes, we lose out on so much tax revenue from the illiegalization of marijuana, and we waste so much drug enforcement dollars on finding these thiefs for petty pot crimes, not to mention the war south of the border that will spill over into the US because of none other than weed. There is seriously so type of corruption going on in politics as to why marijuana is still not legal. They will wake up one day and realize how wrong they are about this, and it will truly become a free land.
The reason marijuana is still illegal is because these huge pharma companies like Pfizer, Elli Lilly, and Merck would rather manipulate you into thinking you have depression/ADD/ADHD/Bi-Polar and force you to be psychologically dependent on the drugs they manufacture with obscene profit margins and little substitutes rather than give you lost cost marijuana which will cure the minor back pain, depression.
Now, hardcore drugs are a whole different animal .I am from the south, and methamphetamine is a huge drug down here which can literally kill people in the process of manufacturing/recreational use. These hardcore drugs such as meth, cocaine and other opium derived products, extasy, can kill people. These drugs cause class warfare amongst the nation. The cause children to go unfed, families to lose savings and live on the streets collecting unemployment and other government benefits.
Lastly, the medical cost to treating such drug addictions is astounding. There are hospitals that go bankrupt because they have to treat AIDS from syringe use, overdose, and other addictions which is taking so much of our taxpayers dollars for what? So some poor redneck can get high. It;s absurd
An Ivy League academic I can
An Ivy League academic I can relate to. Stop the presses.
This probably isn't a fair
This probably isn't a fair question and by no means directed at anyone...
Say X years from now, you catch your kid (could be hs or college) doing heroin with friends. You confront him/her and the response is..."but dad, it's completely legal." What then?
kimbo wrote: Say X years from
Say X years from now, you catch your kid (could be hs or college) doing heroin with friends. You confront him/her and the response is..."but dad, it's completely legal." What then?
It's definitely not to be taken lightly. I'm all in favor of age restrictions like we currently have (except that I would lower the drinking age to 18 yesterday - it's an absolute travesty that you can take a bullet for your country or put a fool in the White House but you can't go buy a beer).
The truth is it's all in how you raise your kids. There are plenty of kids out there who don't smoke or drink because of the way they were raised. And the scenario of a high school kid doing heroin only speaks to the fallacy that prohibition works - if someone wants to do drugs, regardless of age or legality, they're going to do them.
I am in favor of taking steps
I am in favor of taking steps to legalize drugs. I would start with marijuana and if that works well move to something a little higher up.
Reasons: Millions of Americans smoke pot every day while it is illegal. If it is made legal, the cigarette companies would commercialize it, and the government can tax it like cigarettes/alcohol. The taxes, combined with hiring less prosecutors/judges/prision guards would save hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers.
Also, while I am not a personal fan of marijuana, I have tried it and alcohol certainly impairs you more than weed. Alcohol is more addictive (pot is not physically addicting). I agree with Edmundo that you should not be driving while high.
I come from a pretty diverse town (we had the super rich, the super poor, and everyone inbetween), and gangs have most of their revenues from selling pot. If it is legal then they cannot compete with Altria or Philip Morris. I think there would be a huge decline in gang activity around the country. I cannot stress this point enough.
While I support the full
While I support the full legalization of marijuana, the fact that the Netherlands is becoming more and more strict with its drug laws gives me pause. That nation at large has determined that un-restricted access to drugs and prostitution does not necessarily create the ideal quality of life. So I'm a little more reluctant to state matter-of-factly that full legalization of drugs is the best step.
Yay all the way.
Yay all the way. Prohibition is stupid. Why do we feel the need to keep proving this to ourselves?
I would legalize everything.
I would legalize everything. The reasons are too many to list; it's utterly ridiculous that these archaic laws still exist in a "free" country.
I think it's pretty obvious that drugs should never have been made illegal in the first place. If alcohol prohibition is any indication, drug laws have realistically only encouraged the recreational use of narcotics, and the punishment handed down for drug crimes has done nothing to deter re-offenders. In other words drug legislation has been a failure.
@happypantsmcgee I would really like to see that study. If it doesn't include the savings related to law enforcement activities than the point is moot. Who cares if it costs an extra 5 dollars in health care if it saves 10 in legal?
@eyelikecheese you raise an interesting point with the pharmaceutical companies. Assuming drugs became legal, what kind of drugs would big pharma unleash? The things they kick out now, adderall, oxycontin etc., are simply derivatives of naturally occurring substances. If getting high became acceptable, what kind of terrible (awesome?) stuff could they cook up in the lab given free rein? Would Aldous Huxley's Soma become reality? Would that be a bad thing?
@edmundo braverman I wholeheartedly agree with you that they should not legalize marijuana because of the tax incentives, however they wouldn't do it if it would COST the government money - Government always grows, it never shrinks.
About the only thing I can
About the only thing I can agree on is legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. If it helps ease someone's pain, then by all means. AND reduce the drinking age to 18, or leave it up to the states to decide an appropriate age instead of coercing them by denying them highway funding if they refuse. It's one of the tiny handful of things where I disagreed with Reagan.
However, I think it would be ridiculous to make the argument that if we legalize drugs, people won't abuse them anymore. Drugs are a huge issue that often gets swept under the rug. Legalizing hard drugs like cocaine/heroin would worsen the pain and suffering of families with drug abusers and make them available to a wider segment of the population. It's crazy. Do these academics seriously think about what they're proposing?
And as for the argument that we could make tons of revenue by taxing legalized drugs--as we all know, both Congress and states like California are the gold standard for fiscal responsibility, right? It won't matter how much revenue they bring in; they'll STILL be in the red. Dumbasses.
Head of Metal Website: www.headofmetal.com
https://twitter.com/headofmetal2012
Pfalzer wrote: However, I
However, I think it would be ridiculous to make the argument that if we legalize drugs, people won't abuse them anymore. Drugs are a huge issue that often gets swept under the rug. Legalizing hard drugs like cocaine/heroin would worsen the pain and suffering of families with drug abusers and make them available to a wider segment of the population. It's crazy. Do these academics seriously think about what they're proposing?
I don't think anyone made the argument that by legalizing drugs we will stop abuse. The argument is harm reduction.
The classic example is alcohol: When alcohol was made illegal, alcohol abuse actually increased, as did violent crime and incarceration. Today, alcohol is legal, and yes people still abuse it, however rival gangs aren't shooting each other over turf as the academic in the video so eloquently described.
It's pretty obvious that drug prohibition failed in the same way that alcohol prohibition did.
Portugal decriminalized all
Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001. After 5 years, incidents of death by overdose dropped by 25% and HIV infections dropped by 75%. None of the crazy predictions of societal collapse came true.
@ kimbo -
You explain to your son that right/wise and wrong/stupid are not defined by the legal system. You shouldn't have to think too long to come up with examples of morally reprehensible laws.
Full legalization of pot
Edmundo, I completely agree
For the lolz... "I thought
I win here, I win there...
I am not for drug
Nay. Saying that
Where I unload on Twits and take verbal S***s
Legalize and regulate all
I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P
I don't trust Americans to
Learn Financial Modeling
Interview Guides
Resumes
Midas Mulligan Magoo
I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P
SAC wrote: I don't trust
I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P
ke18sb wrote: I also do not
I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P
I'm absolutely for the
"I don't know how else to put this, but... we're over." "Okay. I disagree."
Midas Mulligan Magoo
Let me appoligize now, as I
^^^^I like where you heads
SAC wrote: I don't trust
eokpar02 wrote: SAC wrote: I
@ Frieds I'm not sure what
No, I would not argue that
Let me conclude, you are too
Marijuana
---
man made the money, money never made the man
Wow, this thread is
Ok, I just read through the
ibintx wrote: Other drugs are
---
man made the money, money never made the man
no because drugs are bad
mr1234 wrote: ibintx
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
haha my bad on that. Went
ibintx wrote: haha my bad on
---
man made the money, money never made the man
Dude, chill, i'm on the
mr1234 wrote: ibintx
I am picking on you because
---
man made the money, money never made the man
Frieds, thanks for kicking
I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P
Ok, I just saw the "No on
---
man made the money, money never made the man
Yea. Its not even
Interesting thing to consider
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
I don't know if anyone has