I don’t think Tapswiller was saying that most people start with heavy drugs. He/she was saying that marijuana is just the first illegal drug that people decide to do when they are ready to experiment. I don’t think marijuana is the gateway drug. The gate is already opened. Marijuana is just the first thing on the other side. I would say that an extremely small amount of people that smoke marijuana started with marijuana. I bet they started with cigarettes or booze, so if there is such a thing as a gateway drug one of those two would be it. Do you think that someone who smokes a cigarette is automatically going to smoke weed?
Cite, please? The studies and articles I have read demonstrate the the “gateway drug theory” is a fallacy. In fact, the only drug with any evidence that it is a “gateway” to illegal drug use is nicotine, a legal substance.
Of course there would be addicts. In fact, if drugs were legalized, there would be more addicts than currently, as drugs would be more accessible. Doesn’t change the fact that the overwhelming majority of illegal drug users are not addicts.
Because drugs would be massively cheaper, and the use of recreational drugs would not impose the opportunity cost of potential incarceration.
Because the profit margins in the sale of illegal drugs exist because of criminalization. As an example, the cost of booze dropped markedly after the end of Prohibition.
A corporation is going to give you cheap drugs because, if they don’t, a competitor will undercut them. The production costs of cocaine, heroin, marijuana are bloody low - by the time they reach the streets in the U.S. For heroin, for example, the cost of enough opium to make a kilogram of heroin is $90. By the time it gets sold on the street, that same kilogram costs $290,000 in the U.S. source: 1997 World Drug Report, UNODCCP. Do you see the possibilities for competition on price should drugs be legalized?
What do you mean? For marijuana, for example, the amount of the substance needed to produce the desire effect actually goes down upon increased use.
Sua
SuaSponte:
Great post.
But…
How long does that $25.00/wk quantity of drugs satisfy the user? For life?
And as for the economics questions:
The reason for your computer cost reduction is that the means of production have increased thus creating the drop in price. It costs them less to make more. Demand went up, but supply continues to exceed it.
From where do you pull your pie in the sky $25.00/week?
Again, what makes you think that corporations will make these drugs cheap for you?
Funny how many unaddicted drug users there are on this site. If only the world were as perfect as this SDMB and its Super Recreational Drug Users! A man can dream.
So what’s holding legalization back anyway? In your opinion.
Very good point, horhay, “the gate is already opened.” Perhaps the truth here is so clear that some see right through it?
The desire to experiment with drugs is just that: a desire to experiment. That marijuana happens to be easier to obtain serves to give the impression that its use leads to use of other drugs.
This discounts the reason why anyone started using an illegal drug in the first place. Shoddy conclusion, if you ask me, based on deliberately restricted data.
Having been a friend of a great many users, and a user myself, I can certainly say that for this group what caused use of othe drugs was simple: we realized they weren’t the evil everyone told us they were. Admittedly, we may have been a very fortunate bunch of kids (no one suffers from drug addiction as of 11 or so years passed, though one is seemingly an alcoholic) but certainly not statistically insignificant. Hell, there wasn’t one local news story growing up about people whacked out on drugs having to go to rehab or anything, and let me assure you the drugs flowed when I was growing up.
As far as the demand/price evaluation, in case Sua didn’t make it clear enough, demand and price vary in direct proportion given a stable supply (Sua-- that’s Econ 101 period!). Given the ability to legally manufacture drugs, the supply will not be stable; rather, like all elastic commodities, it will vary in response to any number of economic factors, demand being one of them.
But a-ha! A question forms in erl’s mind: would drugs be (in the long term) an elastic commodity? Cecil noted that cigarettes aren’t, but I wonder if alcohol is (since it is seemingly a much more recreational drug), and whether particular drugs would be. This is really a very interesting question if you think about it. I would imagine, in fact, that individual drugs would be subject to different economic principles; that is, some would be pretty elastic while others would be, essentially, inelastic.
note: as I’ve mentioned in other threads, I personally have access to drug development laboratories all over the US and can readily assure anyone who doubts it for a moment, all pharmaceutical companies are currently geared to produce all illegal drugs. Should drugs be legalized, there would be no start-up costs relevant to production; distribution, of course, is another matter entirely.
note note: It should be important to mention that legalized drugs but regulating the output/consumption will not solve the black market problem; only essentially unrestricted use will do so (where that use occurs must be somewhat available too, which is why I say a private residence).
SuaSponte:
Thanks for declaring your yearly income. It adds credibility to your posts, especially on the internet. Most of the lawyers I know, especially those pulling down MAD CASH as you clearly are, don’t have time for long posts on SDMBs. But, as with most things in life, you seem to be exceptional.
In what area do you practice? And what do you bill per hour?
I don’t know whether I’m anti legalisation or not either.
We punish people harshly now for using drugs and the victims do not get any help. Hopefully, if legalized there would be less victims. **
[/QUOTE]
By ‘Victims’, I was thinking primarily of people killed or injured by intoxicated drivers, people whose property is damaged by revelers during high-jinks, that kind of thing, if a grown adult willingly and knowingly chooses to do themselves harm, they are not a victim, just foolish.
I can see that legalisation might be a nice place to be, but it’s the journey from here to there that scares me.
**
A lot of other things can be harmful in a short space of time. Mountain climbing for example. I know you might say that you aren’t necessarily going to be harmed by mountain climbing and you’re right of course. On the other hand you’re not automatically going to be harmed by taking drugs.
**
You mean like coffee, chocolate, or Coca-Cola? Of course we’re ignoring all the things that are psychologically addictive such as pornography, potato chips, and Madden 2002.
**
As does being in love or finding a religion.
**
And what makes you think you’re immune to those second hand effects now?
**
I think this is where most people are coming from. However we’ve been fighting the war for over 70 years now and I don’t think anybody seriously thinks it is working. I find it odd that we can initiate the same policies year after year and expect something different next time we get a new Drug Czar or something.
I don’t think there’s any such thing as a non-harmful drug. Just about every drug, legal or otherwise, can be dangerous when misused.
Marc
PS: I didn’t mention alcohol once. Hope that pleases you.
Legalization is being held back by the Older generation. You know the people that make the vast majority of the voting population. They think drugs are inherently bad regardless of any evidence that may refute that belief. And, before you go off on drugs being inherently bad, shut your flap for a minute and think.
Cocaine: Used in modern medicine. Stops Blood loss during surgery.
Opiates: Used in modern medicine. Pain management/Surgery
Speed and its derivatives: Used in modern medicine. Over the counter Cold remedies.
These are the worst of the illicit drugs, as far as morbidity rates and addictions go, and yet they can be USED for things that no one would consider bad.
It isn’t the gun, its the shooter.
It isn’t the car, its the driver.
It isn’t the candy bar, its the obese over-eater.
It isn’t the drugs, its the user.
I personally think drugs should be legalized. People should be able to choose what they want to do to themselves with out self-righteous assholes regulating their lives.
**I don’t think any of those things you mentioned are as addictive as Heroin or Crack, but it is a continuum of greys, in which we must draw a line, I’m quite happy to admit that we may have drawn that line in the wrong place.
**The fact that many of the drug users of today are staying in their homes, because it’s illegal and they don’t want to get caught - by staying in their homes, they don’t adversely affect me.
Don’t get me wrong here folks, I don’t have any kind of problem with people doing whatever they want to themselves, but the plain fact is that drugs alter people’s behaviour, in a way that is not always pleasant, I think it might be nice to live in a world filled with happy incapacitated stoned people, but looking around me, I feel this isn’t all we would get, were we to try to get there from the present culture.
Well, by its terms, a $25.00/wk quantity of drugs would satisfy a drug user for one week. :rolleyes:
The reason that drugs cost what they do is not supply issues. Indeed, despite 20+ years of the drug war, U.S. street prices for illegal drugs has dropped dramatically - Instead, it is opportunity cost. The supplier faces a real risk that the drugs they are shipping will be seized and/or the supplier will be arrested. They demand compensation for that risk - thus the high price of drugs.
From interviews with Mark Kleinman, Ph.D., a drugs-policy expert at UCLA, who estimates that cocaine and heroin would cost 1/20 of their current street price if they were legalized, and marijuana would “cost as much as tea.” Given that the street price of a gram of heroin has dropped from $5,000 in 1981 to $1,000 presently, a gram of cocaine dropped from $500 in 1981 to $150 presently, and a gram of marijuana dropped from $15 in 1992 to $9 presently (source ABT Associates, a think tank), it is clear that drugs prohibition isn’t impacting supply greatly, and that legalization would only increase supply, thus lowering price.
That’s really easy. Corporations compete on quality and price. Assuming quality is equivalent, price is the only option. If X corporation insists on trying to keep the 3,222% increase over wholesale (farmgate) price over street price, I think it is pretty same to assume that another corporation will enter the market and charge a price that produces a lower return on investment. After all, Busweiser doesn’t charge 15$ a bottle of beer, because it knows it will lose its customers to Miller.
Given that:
65-70% of the population of heroin users are not dependent;
80% of the population of cocaine users are not dependent;
87% of the population of sedative users are not dependent;
88% of the population of stimulants users are not dependent;
88% of the population of cannabis users are not dependent;
91% of the population of hallucinogen users are not dependent;
91% of the population of pain reliever users are not dependent;
92% of the population of alcohol users are not dependent;
93% of the population of tranquilizer users are not dependent;
and
95% of the population of inhalant users are not dependent;
it is not unsual that there would be unaddicted drug users on this site. BTW, it is a fallacy to assume that persons in favor of legalization of particular conduct engage in that conduct. For example, I am in favor of legalization of abortion, but have never had one or had an SO who has had one. It is possible to believe that activities should be legal without engaging in said behavior.
Two things. First, inertia. It is safer for politicians to cling to the status quo than to strike out boldly.
Second, undoubtedly legalization will increase addiction. Supply will increase, and more people will try drugs. And the percentages noted above will become addicted. And that is a definite cost society will have to bear. And it is an obvious cost. It shows up more clearly than the (greater) benefits gained from legalization - less prison costs, less police costs, increased opportunities for inner city residents, etc.
Sua
forgot to give my sources on rates of addiction. Here they are:
EMCDDA (the European Union’s drugs unit) 2000 Annual Report; United States Food and Drug Administration *SAMSSA National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.
Sua
**
How many of them had a beer first?
**
Maybe we could take the 50+ billion we spend fighting drugs and put it to better use. I’m sure we’ll still have addicts.
**
Good point. In the menewhile we’ve got almost three quarters of a century of the war on drugs. I think the results show that criminalization doesn’t work.
**
I don’t know. Maybe the idea of being able to buy some heroin without risking jail time is an attractive prospect. Also the idea that buying a drug who’s purity level is regulated might be a nice as well.
**
Well a corporate dealer isn’t going to go around shooting the competetion. When was the last time you saw Coors and Budweiser acting like Al Capone?
**
When you get around to shooting them down let us know.
I don’t know. Alcoholics seem to just drink more.
Marc
And this fact makes the person recieving the bullet happier?
And the woman mown down on a pedestrian crossing accepts this?
As does alcohol. If you are in favor of Prohibition of alcohol, Mangetout, then your position has validity. If you are not, however, then your position is ignorance, as alcohol contributes to immensely larger amounts of social ills than all illegal drugs combined - and, counting medical costs we all bear, all drugs combined wouldn’t even come close to the costs imposed by nicotine, even if all drugs were legal.
Sua
If the person wants to kill someone, they will regardless of what weapon if any they use.
Teach the person to drive safely and they won’t get mow other people down.
Treat the addicts, Educate our children, Stop making criminals, so they can have oppurtunity after they are treated for their problems, End the dealers ability to make money and the adverse affects of drugs will be reduced.
Since US Government drug surveys became legitimate, sometime in the Seventies, every aspect of negative affects of direct drug use, addiction, morbidity etc, has statistically stayed the same. And, since the War on Drugs really took off, Millions of Americans have become felons, ending their chance of voting, holding a job and sometimes even seeing the light of day, just for using drugs. Violent crime associated with the sale of drugs has increased. Deaths from untreated addicts has statistically stayed the same. Education has been misleading, and in the case of the Government funded DARE program, actually increased drug use by its lies. Our constitution has been shredded. Property has been siezed, with the profits going to the Government, with no charges or cnvictions. The only country to EVER have as many people incarcerated as the US does right now is Stalin Russia. The amount of money spent by the US Government this year on the War on Drugs is between 40 and 60 billion dollars, 4 to 6 times the amount of money they need to take out of Socail Security this year.
The War on Drugs has no chance of erradicating drugs. Whats worse is that it seems to be doing NOTHING to improve the negative affects the USERS and DEALERS have on society. And, many studies show the WAR on Drugs makes the negative things actually worse.
Hey!, I already said I don’t know exactly which way I feel about this.
Like I keep saying; I don’t mind people doing whatever they want, but I think legalising drugs is going to result in an increase in the kind of unpleasant things that happen when people get out of their heads, the question then is whether I would find that increase acceptable.
I was beaten up once outside a pub by a bloke who was drunk, for no other reason than that he had just watched his football team lose live on TV, so should we ban football as well?
I think it’s a bit of a diversion to talk about whether I want to ban alcohol, as banning something that has been legal is not necessarily the effective opposite of legalising something that was banned.
Anyway, isn’t that just like saying that since more people are killed on the road than by murderers, we shouldn’t do anything about murderers until we have solved the traffic problems?
Mangetout,
And as I already said: Punish for the crime, not for the motivation.
And maybe there would have been a cop around to help you out outside that bar if so many of them weren’t out trying to bust harmless potheads.
Oh yea,
It sure is funny how you left out the chocolate analogy.
Odesity is the most costly health factor in the US right now. It destroys all negative health affects of drugs in its magnitude. Yet, you can plainly see, that it isn’t the deadly chocolate, it is the eater.
You’re funny,
I’d rather the crime never happened.
I’m trying very hard to keep an open mind about this, and you surely understand that most of what I’ve said is opinion based on fears about what might happen, but I don’t think I can stay in this debate in the face of hostility.