Inspired by this thread.
What if governments the world over suddenly made narcotics legal? What would be the economic effects world-wide?
In history, there was a time when all narcotics were legal. What happened, is why we now have laws controlling them.
What happened?
Don’t you know? The evil, trecherous Negroes were seducing young, innocent white kids with their reefer and bee-bop jungle music. One hit of “reefer” and they were hooked. The next thing you know, Sweet Young Sally was hustling her ass on the corner to pay for her “heroin” habit, and Little Billy was holding up liquor stores so he could score another “joint.” It all came to a sad ending. That’s why we must remain Eternally Vigilant against the Evils of “Rock & Roll” music and “Those Kind of People.”
And what have those laws gotten us? We still have narcotics addicts able to get whatever drug they are hooked on with a minimum of effort, while everyone else has seen our freedoms slowly eroded, while spending billions upon billions of dollars in a failed effort to keep people from putting “bad” things in their bodies.
Not exactly a good thing for me…
It’s not really fair to go blaming everything on the Negroes. It was the Chinamen who were running all those opium dens.
Well, just because you make narcotics legal doesn’t mean they suddenly become irrelevant. I’m not sure legality is just some magic wand you can wave and suddenly everything changes overnight. Then again, maybe I don’t understand what you mean by “relevant.”
Legal and taxed.
Probably no more use than now and very likely less underage use. Less violent crime as much violent crime is associated with the illegal drug trade. Revenues generated could be used for treatment programs.
BTW, I know the comment was made in jest, but you do know that it was the British who were the major drug trafficers in opium and other illegal substances? The Opium War was provoked as Lin Tse-hsü attempted to crack down on it and the English felt that their rights to illegally addict the Chinese were being trampled upon.
Amen.
Perhaps the most tragic consequence of making drugs illegal is the way it has criminalized our youth; particularly our young black men. Why in the world more folks don’t rise up and say it is absolutely idiotic to put young men in jail in some sort of misguided effort to control drug use, I cannot figure out.
Wanna reduce crime? Change what’s illegal. It’s insane.
What if this sentence no verb? 
No, seriously, the War on Drugs is more about getting our authoritarian rocks off than about controlling the drug trade, which is probably impossible the way we’re playing the game.
We’re not putting drug people in jail to get them to stop using or pushing drugs. We’re putting them in jail because it makes us feel like we’re doing something about a problem we don’t really want to work to solve.
We’re putting people in jail because overracting about drugs has become a multi billion dollar industry in this country and if we stopped penalizing people for their own chemical choices the whole system would come crashing down.
Then the poor distressed farmers of Afghanistan and Bolivia would find the price of their products severely depressed – but likewise the production costs. On balance, it would be better for them. And for everyone else.
Yes, and making stealing illegal has caused more of our young people to be criminalized, as well as assult, murder, fraud, and any number of crimes against society. Do you really think making drugs legal would prevent crime? Alcohol is legal and look at the damage drinking does to not only the drinker, but to the innocent people they kill on the highways. More than half of the injury auto accidents involve drinking. You are young and you want to do drugs recreationally, you don’t care if you injure yourself and others around you, you just want your fix. Sure people will do drugs illegally as well as steal, kill, and so forth, should we just throw in the towel and start carrying guns again. Drugs were made illegal because of the damage they do to society and individuals. Government not only has the right to protect innocent victims from drug crazed addicts, it has the obligation to do so.
Of course. Violent crime stemming from distribution would cease, and theft and violent crime needed to finance exorbitantly priced habits would drop significantly as well.
Alcohol is legal and look at the damage drinking does to not only the drinker, but to the innocent people they kill on the highways. More than half of the injury auto accidents involve drinking.
That depends on the damage to society and individuals you’re talking about. The posts upthread joking about racism and the like weren’t kidding. Do a little reading up on Harry Anslinger, the first “Drug Czar” in America and the “proof” that was used in legislating our current laws. Frightening stuff.
Those are all crimes against individuals.
Marajuana isn’t a narcotic.
It seems to have worked out that way in the Netherlands. Crime still happens, of course, but it’s not done by addicts to feed their habits.
Tell that to the Gummint. I didn’t make it a Schedule I drug - they did!
I royally screwed up the coding in my post above. I attributed my response to Letkatt somehow. I apologize for any confusion.
I had a friend, he died, who regularly visited the Netherlands, he told a different story. He said drugs dealers were allowed to sell drugs openly, but only in certain places, like parks. If they sold them anywhere else they faced stiff penalities. Drug use was also limited to certain areas, and there were many other restrictions. It wasn’t a free market at all. England attempted to supply addicts free drugs, but that only increased the drug usage. Drugs are a two-edged sword that cuts in both directions. People do get addicted and many are addicted that claim they are not. Same with alcohol, if you drink more than 2 drinks, 2 ounces, a day you are becoming addicted.
I wish it was different. But it is not. This world is sometimes a tough place to live, and I would recommend religion as a coping mechanism rather than drugs.