here the economist lays out its case for legalization of all drugs--not just marijuana.much of what is said makes sense. i've been on board for years...
what say you? the big downside is the potential for increased use.
but think of the billions saved on a seeming pointless game of 'catch the bad drug dealer' that kills good policemen and destroys inner city neighborhoods. and these drug lords of the inner cities' supply of money and power would dry up very quickly as regulated 'drug stores' would sell a cleaner, cheaper product.
am i out in left field here?
convince me otherwise.
13 comments:
Hamsterdam, baby. bring it on...
paul. that would assume most drug cartels are pushing weed, not crack...
i think mary jane is def involved, but the harder drugs, meth, cocaine, and the likes are really fueling the violence as far as i know.
but, on a broader sense, i've been on board for legalization for awhile too. hey it made sense with prohibition and boot-legging. and i will argue any day that alcohol is much more destructive to society than weed ever will or could be.
A society's laws reflect its values. There is just that sense of values that holds me back from fully supporting it. But finding a way to end the violence gives good reason.
I don't think that legalizing tree is going to make even a portion of the people growing and selling clean up and get a real job. They will transition to something else in crime or the blackmarket I would guess.
Once again, I think that any measure that can be taken to protect and nuture families is the best thing for society, and having mom and pop puffing legaly as opposed to illegaly doesn't seem like an enhancement to me. It might cost them less and keep them out of jail though...
as the article shows (and sorry if the image mis-lead you all) i am agreeing with the economist that all drugs should be legalized.
i guess it didn't even occur to you that this was my argument as it is a bit radical?
maybe i will modify the post itself...
matty: measures to help families are important. i am arguing that this measure would help families by decreasing gang violence in the inner cities and get their kids off the streets and back into school--if kids can't make more dealing then they can with a high school diploma then they may be motivated to become a contributing citizen/parent...
petey: read the linked articles, man.
stevey. guilty as charged. my bad.
ok. having read the article. i think it's interesting these guys have been calling for it for the last 20 years.
i'm not sure i support fully legalization. buying heroin from the quickie-mart, no matter how clean/pure or low-dose it is just doesn't seem right. the regulations for legalized drugs was have to be stiff, like a lot stricter than selling adult magazines/videos are now. even then, i'm not sure about it.
i think that even if the economics are behind it, i don't think the policy will be. let alone the politics... we can't even get a consensus on whether the word condom should be used in public schools. so i dare a politician to come out in favor... (gavin newsome doesn't count)
Legalizing drugs would have the effect of moving the crooks from the streets to Washington. The state would effectively become the dealer making $$$ off of the high taxes they would undoubtedly put on drugs.
I am not diluted enough to believe that this would relieve the tax burden on non-users, not to mention the social cost that I believe would inevitably follow if any adult could run down to the pharmacy and buy a hit of cocaine.
I think usage would spread widely, as has the usage of alcohol since the end of the prohibition. Legalization changes public perceptions of social acceptability.
I read an article in my local paper last year making the same arguments in favor of prostitution. I thought it was satire at first.
I agree with Petey that it is not politically feasible, but beyond that, I disagree with Paul on the question of "should it be done". I think it would be a step in the wrong direction, even if some parts of it make economic sense.
Perhaps a more diluted Matt would be easier to handle than the full-strength one.
But now, more seriously, folks:
I have been known to mistake irony. On this blog. Is this some? If so, can I jump on board? I will bet the “least bad” philosophy could be a solution to most of society’s ills. Like child prostitution, for instance. We could shut bad ‘ol Tijuana down. I know Amsterdam has been incredibly successful with its marijuana coffeeshops. I wonder if they have considered this solution to their thriving child trafficking market?
Don’t say I am trying to equate kiddie crimes with marijuana, because I am not. But help me, because I am old and naive about drugs. Is meth a “soft” drug or one of those hard ones?
BTW, did you know that I got dad to watch his first-ever episode of American Idol? He said it was only because they were doing Motown.
matty: you're right, public perception matters.
however, great strides have been made in cutting down the use of cigarettes. it is definitely no longer cool to smoke.
it would be an easier public health sell to condemn the use of meth, heroine, cocaine, pcp, ecstasy etc. because of the immediately harmful effects. heart attacks, strokes, renal failure, necrotizing fasciitis, endocarditis. people die in awful ways from these drugs.
the increased use argument is concerning. especially for peaceful suburbs of america where life is pretty good. if you have parents stowing away hard drugs in their cabinets and their kids are throwing parties with it..? this would be a tragedy.
the inner cities however, are wallowing in the gang violence, prostitution, oppresion, and poverty that arrives from the drug culture. why finish school when you can gang bang for better money?
i would certainly be in favor of very strict laws regarding the possesion of drugs (ie. stiff penalties for drugs found in home with minors. limiting the purchasing locations to one or two 'stores' per county. rigorous public service announcements and messages. tying bonuses of government officials running the drug program to decreased use--not increased revenue...)
just a few thoughts.
but all the death and gang banging seems such a waste. deprive them of their cash flow and they may look elsewhere for a livelihood...
well said paul.
i think that line of thought.
Post a Comment