The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (aka FBI Canada style) had a hufe multi year operation come to perfect fruition a few years ago where in they stopped, literally, a "ship full" of drugs (heroin) . (I can't recall how much but it was multi-tonne range. Massive street value.)
Effect on illegal drug prices on the east coast of the North America - not measureable.
I used to go back and forth with people on the rationalizations for and against - y'know, everything from lowering/increasing crime to economical impacts.
Then I realized that, honestly, it was a bunch of pragmatic B.S.
If you approach it from a principled view - a fundamental ideology or philosophy - it makes things a lot simpler.
You either believe the government (with or without the "majority" consent) has the right to regulate what you do with your body, or you do not. End of discussion for me. If you believe they have that right then I can ask you to enumerate in all and every way they have this right. Typically this either goes into vague ambiguities ("Oh, well, unless it hurts someone in some way") or the person I'm dealing with basically believing that, as long as the "majority" agrees, anything goes. Slippery slope arguments become quite prevalent here.
Hence the reason I can't stand most self-proclaimed libertarians. They're usually one or two-issue voters. Y'know, "these laws are bad/good because of personal rights, but we NEED just THIS law, just this teeny, weeny little law."
So, the price has stabilized at about $80/gram. I'll admit that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I'm obviously missing the point here. How is this an argument for legalizing cocaine? You've got a great blog, though. Kudos to the Captain!
Make drugs illegal all you want, it doesn't halt the shipment of drugs even in the slightest. if the war on drugs was working, then the price of drugs would go up. This just shows me we've pissed away billions on trying to stop narcotics, AS WELL AS GIVEN UP A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO TAX DRUGS AT 300% MUCH LIKE WE DO CIGARETTES!
Now Cap, that's not the only way the graph could be interpreted. It's true that if prices are low, it could be because supply is so great. But it could be that demand is really, really low, which would imply that the War on Drugs is a success.
So let's check some studies on how high drug use is in the USA. Here's one: (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/plos-ush062608.php) The authors found that 16.2% of people in the United States had used cocaine in their lifetime, a level much higher than any other country surveyed (the second highest level of cocaine use was in New Zealand, where 4.3% of people reported having used cocaine). Cannabis use was highest in the US (42.4%), followed by New Zealand (41.9%).
Well, that and your graph together make a pretty airtight case. The War on Drugs has failed. Don't thank me for the assist on this point, it's my pleasure.
"If the government can't keep drugs away from inmates who are locked in steel cages, surrounded by barbed wire, watched by armed guards, drug-tested, strip-searched, X-rayed, and videotaped – how can it possibly stop the flow of drugs to an entire nation?" – Ron Crickenberger
Of course, that doesn't mean they won't use drugs as an excuse to take away every civil liberty they can possibly justify, though.
Couldn't agree more with you, Cap. However, taxing cocain (or cigarettes) at 300% is practically the same as a war on drugs. It tells people what to consume and what not to consume. Let them decide for themselves. If they want to end up being addicted and living homeless under bridges, then let them! Let people make their own decisions so that they can finally grow up to live their own life.
Some people say that we have to fight the war on drugs in order to protect our children. That's nonsense. Protecting our children is the job of parents, not of governments.
Dtrum, taxing drugs, just like taxing tobacco, would not be a way to control people's behaviour. For one thing, the retail price, even with a 300% tax, would be lower than it is now.
No, the real reason for taxing them at high rates would be to recoup the damage which they inevitably will cause. Now, in a non-socialist society this wouldn't be as much of a problem. Really, the only costs associated with drug users would be salaries for a few more police officers, and a dozen extra morticians. But in a society which guarantees free medical care to those who are unable to pay for it, you have to be able to recoup those medical costs somehow.
Really, just stopping the "war o drugs" would save billions, but that's no reason why we shouldn't make drug-users pay for the problems they cause. Think of it as a type of insurance :)
In my opinion the war on the drugs has not been prosecuted in any continuous, sustained, and trending manner, which is primarily why it has "failed."
I do support legalization of marijuana, although it's going to be a pain for corporations and the government to regulate their employees use of it.
I don't support legalization of "hard" drugs. By the logic being used to legalize these, we should also legalize all prescription drugs, as well. Do you all support that?
The problem with the current war on drugs is that more people die from circumstances surrounding the illegal manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of drugs than die from the drugs themselves. People are murdered for access to supply and real estate, and this culture of violence pits the most vulnerable portions of the urban population against each other in full fledged, lethal, urban warfare. The drugs themselves aren't as dangerous to the innocent bystanders as the violence and organized crime that results from prohibition and wartime prices. Just because the prices have fallen doesn't mean that they would not have fallen even more in the absence of prohibition--computer and cell phone technology follow a very similar trend. I agree, overall, with the thrust of the article.
Spell it out for us idiots. What's your point?
ReplyDeleteThe Royal Canadian Mounted Police (aka FBI Canada style) had a hufe multi year operation come to perfect fruition a few years ago where in they stopped, literally, a "ship full" of drugs (heroin) . (I can't recall how much but it was multi-tonne range. Massive street value.)
ReplyDeleteEffect on illegal drug prices on the east coast of the North America - not measureable.
I used to go back and forth with people on the rationalizations for and against - y'know, everything from lowering/increasing crime to economical impacts.
ReplyDeleteThen I realized that, honestly, it was a bunch of pragmatic B.S.
If you approach it from a principled view - a fundamental ideology or philosophy - it makes things a lot simpler.
You either believe the government (with or without the "majority" consent) has the right to regulate what you do with your body, or you do not. End of discussion for me. If you believe they have that right then I can ask you to enumerate in all and every way they have this right. Typically this either goes into vague ambiguities ("Oh, well, unless it hurts someone in some way") or the person I'm dealing with basically believing that, as long as the "majority" agrees, anything goes. Slippery slope arguments become quite prevalent here.
Hence the reason I can't stand most self-proclaimed libertarians. They're usually one or two-issue voters. Y'know, "these laws are bad/good because of personal rights, but we NEED just THIS law, just this teeny, weeny little law."
So, the price has stabilized at about $80/gram. I'll admit that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I'm obviously missing the point here. How is this an argument for legalizing cocaine? You've got a great blog, though. Kudos to the Captain!
ReplyDeleteMake drugs illegal all you want, it doesn't halt the shipment of drugs even in the slightest. if the war on drugs was working, then the price of drugs would go up. This just shows me we've pissed away billions on trying to stop narcotics, AS WELL AS GIVEN UP A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO TAX DRUGS AT 300% MUCH LIKE WE DO CIGARETTES!
ReplyDeleteNow Cap, that's not the only way the graph could be interpreted. It's true that if prices are low, it could be because supply is so great. But it could be that demand is really, really low, which would imply that the War on Drugs is a success.
ReplyDeleteSo let's check some studies on how high drug use is in the USA. Here's one: (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/plos-ush062608.php)
The authors found that 16.2% of people in the United States had used cocaine in their lifetime, a level much higher than any other country surveyed (the second highest level of cocaine use was in New Zealand, where 4.3% of people reported having used cocaine). Cannabis use was highest in the US (42.4%), followed by New Zealand (41.9%).
Well, that and your graph together make a pretty airtight case. The War on Drugs has failed. Don't thank me for the assist on this point, it's my pleasure.
"If the government can't keep drugs away from inmates who are locked in steel cages, surrounded by barbed wire, watched by armed guards, drug-tested, strip-searched, X-rayed, and videotaped – how can it possibly stop the flow of drugs to an entire nation?" – Ron Crickenberger
ReplyDeleteOf course, that doesn't mean they won't use drugs as an excuse to take away every civil liberty they can possibly justify, though.
Couldn't agree more with you, Cap. However, taxing cocain (or cigarettes) at 300% is practically the same as a war on drugs. It tells people what to consume and what not to consume. Let them decide for themselves. If they want to end up being addicted and living homeless under bridges, then let them! Let people make their own decisions so that they can finally grow up to live their own life.
ReplyDeleteSome people say that we have to fight the war on drugs in order to protect our children. That's nonsense. Protecting our children is the job of parents, not of governments.
Dtrum, taxing drugs, just like taxing tobacco, would not be a way to control people's behaviour. For one thing, the retail price, even with a 300% tax, would be lower than it is now.
ReplyDeleteNo, the real reason for taxing them at high rates would be to recoup the damage which they inevitably will cause. Now, in a non-socialist society this wouldn't be as much of a problem. Really, the only costs associated with drug users would be salaries for a few more police officers, and a dozen extra morticians. But in a society which guarantees free medical care to those who are unable to pay for it, you have to be able to recoup those medical costs somehow.
Really, just stopping the "war o drugs" would save billions, but that's no reason why we shouldn't make drug-users pay for the problems they cause. Think of it as a type of insurance :)
In my opinion the war on the drugs has not been prosecuted in any continuous, sustained, and trending manner, which is primarily why it has "failed."
ReplyDeleteI do support legalization of marijuana, although it's going to be a pain for corporations and the government to regulate their employees use of it.
I don't support legalization of "hard" drugs. By the logic being used to legalize these, we should also legalize all prescription drugs, as well. Do you all support that?
I suggest everybody read this DEA brief... it debunks a bunch of legalization myths.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/index.html
The problem with the current war on drugs is that more people die from circumstances surrounding the illegal manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of drugs than die from the drugs themselves. People are murdered for access to supply and real estate, and this culture of violence pits the most vulnerable portions of the urban population against each other in full fledged, lethal, urban warfare. The drugs themselves aren't as dangerous to the innocent bystanders as the violence and organized crime that results from prohibition and wartime prices. Just because the prices have fallen doesn't mean that they would not have fallen even more in the absence of prohibition--computer and cell phone technology follow a very similar trend. I agree, overall, with the thrust of the article.
ReplyDelete