I’m going to do this Usenet style, so I can respond as best I can paragrah by paragraph.
For the record, I do not use any drugs that are currently illegal.
Lines offset by >'s originally posted by austin:
> Of course, the war on drugs has caused nu-
> merous problems. Proponents of legalization
> feel that, although legalization would >cause
> new problems, they would be lesser than the
> existing ones. Would they?
Nobody knows. But, witness Amsterdam, where drugs are not exactly legal, but are fairly well ignored. Not exacly tops on everybody’s list of crime-ridden areas, although they do have their problems. My feeling (unresearched) is that many of their problems could be helped by better enforcement of laws dealing with the secondary effects of drug use.
> Firstly, all drugs are not the same. Does
> anyone believe that PCP should be >legalized?
I do. Tax the shit out of it, and make the penalties for crimes commited under the influence severe, even for comparatively minor crimes. Define the state of being on PCP in public as equivalent to carrying a deadly weapon concealed, and allow police to respond similarly if required.
> Any legalization approach must take each
> drug under consideration seperately. >A “one-
> size-fits-all” approach would be foolish.
I agree. Let’s try a phased approach, starting with marijuana, which is already widely acknowledged as being less harmful to the user than many other illegal drugs. Again, tax the shit out of it, and set harsh penalties for crimes under the influence or otherwise motivated by the drug. The idea is to decriminalize the actual use of the drug, but to make it prohibitive for the user to break the law in order to support the habit.
>
> Secondly, If there were a legal source for
> any drug, will the illegal dealers simply
> give up and go get jobs? I feel that some >of
> them would try to continue selling drugs.
> For one thing, many dealers sell on credit.
> They know when their customers get paid, >and
> where they live. Few people want to cross a
> dealer, so most of them pay up. If any drug
> were legalized, some addicts would spend up
> all their money and credit, and would go to
> the illegal dealer for a fix “until >payday”.
Dealers can only do this because the drugs are illegal. Remember, the high price of drugs comes entirely from the interaction of two factors: their addictive qualities and their illegality. If either of the factors were removed, prices would plummet. Since the addictive quality is not likely to be removed, we’re left with removing the illegality. If drugs were legal, they could be cheaply mass-produced, and prices would plummet despite heavy taxation. This would remove the incentive for foreign drug cartels to import drugs, and could break their backs. Why buy a rock for $20 when you can get one of guarnteed purity at the 7-11 for $5? Just don’t stick up the 7-11 because you’re jonesing, or you’ll do serious time.
Even if I do buy the $20 rock on credit “until payday,” the dealer is subject to severe penalties if he roughs me up for the dough, because it’s a drug-related crime.
> Also, since many adults would go to legal
> sources, illegal dealers might increasingly
> target children.
That’s possible, and a valid point. But it presupposes an age limit such as we have on alcohol and tobacco. I actually agree that age limits are a good thing, not that it’s actually stopped kids from drinking and smoking. And anti-drug education seems to work only marginally well, no matter how fully funded. Drug dealers probably would deal to kids. But they would do so at a much-reduced cost, for a number of reasons (kids don’t have as much money as adults, kids are not likely to pay a dealer $20 for a fix they could have their older friends buy for them for $5, etc.). It’d be pretty hard to control, but a start could be made by requiring licences to sell drugs, just as we do liquor, and busting unlicensed sellers. As a former grocery-store employee, I know that if a checker is caught in a sting selling beer to a minor, they can be fined something like $10,000, and they’ll probably get a long, unpaid vacation (I think my employer’s policy was 30 days’ suspension, minmum for a first offence). This will keep most folks honest.
For that matter, keep the supply chains tight, much as they are for beer and liquor. You can (most places) brew your own beer or wine legally, as long as it’s for your own use, and you don’t sell it. Beweries and wineries sell mainly to distributors, who sell to licensed retailers, who sell to the user. Set up a parallel structure for drugs. Just as homebrewed beer is limited (in California) to 100gal/yr., allow a private citizen two marijuana plants at any one time. “Hard” drugs generally require some equipment and procedure that the average user won’t have access to, just as “hard” liquor does. Both can be done, but probably shouldn’t, since the pros do it much better. Allow meth labs and coke refineries only with licenses similar to distillery licenses in cost and difficulty to acquire.
> Thirdly, it is believed by many that >legal-
> ization would end drug related violence. It
> probably would, to some extent. But, as il-
> legal markets shrank, and illegal dealers
> faced increased competition, it might cause
> new violence.
Again, the drug-related crimes would carry stiff penalties. I’d wager that a large proportion of street dealers would either find another scam to run, or end up in jail. All these taxes we’re collecting sure do build nice, big prisons. let them go there and live out their days.
>
> Fourthly, legalization may cause more >young
> people to try drugs. Oh yes, I know that a
> significant percentage of high-schoolers
> have used marijuana, but more of them have
> tried alcohol. Later in life, a LOT more
> adults use alcohol than marijuana. This may
> change if government sanctions drug use.
And what’s the problem with that? It’s legal. Sure, drugs aren’t good for you. Neither is cholesterol. Or tobacco. Or too much alcohol. Marijuana is not evil, although it is currently illegal. I’ve worked with lots of respectable people who go home after work and toke. I don’t care. They’ve offered me bonghits. I’ve politely refused. They seem to be just fine with that. Just as employers don’t want employees using alcohol (a legal drug) on the job, they probably would also ask that their employees not toke on the job. Or tweek. Or fry. Or whatever. If you need to use that badly, you don’t want to work there.
>
> Lastly, I have yet to here any ideas about
> how any drug legalization would work. Who,
> what, where, when, and how? Legislators and
> their staff are good at making law from
> ideas, but what are the ideas?
I think I’ve made a start on those ideas above. It’ll take a long time to implement fully, but we have the parallel framework of the alcohol and tobacco industries to look at.
>What about
> liability? When users’ hearts start to >burst
> from cocaine, and the inevitable lawsuits
> begin, what then? Will anyone insure drug
> distribution for recreational purposes?
I don’t have a real answer for you on this one, since our litigious society seems to think lawsuits are a sport, but perhaps there just needs to be a law that says that risky behaviors are automatically acknowledged to be dangerous, and liability-free. Then legally define use of coke and other drugs as risky. Say so, in big, ugly letters on the packaging. Run commercials saying so. The reason the tobacco companies are getting munched right now is that they’ve held for so long that their products are harmless, and they’re finally being nailed down to saying that they are hamful. Therefore, the priduct is not as safe as they’ve been saying, and they’re liable for damages. Be open about the danger of using drugs: “Snow brand coke: It’s a killer, but what a rush!”
>
> I realize that I have raised many >questions
> and
of times in his posts.