Posted on 03/20/2015 10:51:48 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom
On what evidentiary basis do you claim that legalization will lead to lower prices? Since there is absolutely no evidence, and there are so many confounding factors that it is impossible to even try to make a prediction on effect of legalization on drug cost. What we CAN predict is that legalization will lead to more abusers, and to more heavy use among existing abusers. We can say that because of human nature--legalizing an activity increases it, and since abusers are always about getting high, they'll jump at the chance to be able to indulge whenever they want. Neither of those factors is compatible with the concept that legalization will somehow lead to less crime. Regardless of the price, more abusers becoming permanently unable to hold a job is a recipe for more crime.
To not only give up on the possibility of changing that, but to also use it as a rationalization for further erosion of individual rights, is not a conservative position.
I'm pointing out a fact, not stating a position.
I'm utterly against the unlimited and growing practice of wealth redistribution, and I think that politicians who work tirelessly to increase the amount of dependency on government should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town (I'm being nice--what I would really have done to them is far more severe).
However, I am utterly powerless to change the behavior of those politicians or those who are dependent on handouts and keep voting for those politicians. A large number of the dependent class are, in fact, drug abusers. I really dislike the idea of handing those politicians a whole new class of dependent, incapable constituents by increasing the number of drug addicts through legalization.
Again: Some drug users do so; it's unjust and immoral to punish all members of a group for what some members do.
In my experience, drug abusers *always* engage in the destructive behaviors that I have already described. The level of violence is variable between different addicts, as is the amount of crime they commit. I know someone who committed a rape and murder while under the influence of illicit drugs; someone else who died of his addictions; and another who enjoyed beating people up, especially when he was high. Of course, we don't have to depend on my anecdotal experiences with drug abusers as evidence, since the government analyzes data on crime and drug abuse and makes it available publicly. You can Google those reports for yourself, but here are a couple I just found: Drugs And Crime Facts, ADAM II 2013 ANNUAL REPORT. Those reports indicate that there is a strong relationship between drug use and crime; the belief that legalization of drugs will somehow lead to lower crime is simply not supported by any evidence. The evidence suggests that legalized drug use will cause more crime, not less.
You have a serious problem with misrepresenting the position of those who disagree with you.
Your strong support of legalization of drug abuse along with your inability/refusal to objectively consider *all* of the facts is a strong indication that you have (to use a cliché) a dog in this fight. Get help, seriously.
On what evidentiary basis do you claim that legalization will lead to lower prices? Since there is absolutely no evidence,
History provides the evidence: During Prohibition of the drug alcohol, "the price of beer increased by more than 700 percent, and that of brandies increased by 433 percent, spirit prices increased by 270 percent" - Mark Thornton, Assistant Professor of Economics at Auburn University, http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf.
and there are so many confounding factors that it is impossible to even try to make a prediction on effect of legalization on drug cost. What we CAN predict is that legalization will lead to more abusers, and to more heavy use among existing abusers.
Because there are no confounding factors there, right? LOL!
We can say that because of human nature--legalizing an activity increases it, and since abusers are always about getting high, they'll jump at the chance to be able to indulge whenever they want.
Since that claim is about those who already abuse, it doesn't even pretend to support your claim that "legalization will lead to more abusers." Legalization will decrease incentives to engage in abuse-favoring behaviors such as using as much as possible when one has an opportunity to use, and focusing one's time and thought on obtaining and using - and thus may very well lead to fewer abusers.
As for more heavy use among existing abusers, many abusers have already taken great care to be able to indulge whenever they want.
To not only give up on the possibility of changing that, but to also use it as a rationalization for further erosion of individual rights, is not a conservative position.
I'm pointing out a fact, not stating a position.
Your statement "That is not likely to change" is not a fact but an opinion, and a defeatist one at that - no sound basis for rationalizing further erosion of individual rights.
increasing the number of drug addicts through legalization.
There's no evidence on the table that legalization would increase the number of drug addicts.
Again: Some drug users do so; it's unjust and immoral to punish all members of a group for what some members do.
In my experience, drug abusers *always* engage in the destructive behaviors that I have already described.
It may be the case that all the drug abusers you've known, and known to be drug abusers, engage in destructive behaviors - but that's a very nonrandom sample of drug abusers so can't be extrapolated to all abusers. Not to mention that fact that no all drug users are abusers.
Of course, we don't have to depend on my anecdotal experiences with drug abusers as evidence
Kudos for being the only legalization opponent I ever encountered who acknowledges that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
Drugs And Crime Facts, ADAM II 2013 ANNUAL REPORT. Those reports indicate that there is a strong relationship between drug use and crime
The relationships shown are: some users committing crime to get money for drugs, already discussed in this post; and arrestees under the influence - which does not show that drug use causes crime but may very well simply reflect that the sort of people willing to break the existing drug laws are also willing to break other laws ... not exactly a news flash.
You have a serious problem with misrepresenting the position of those who disagree with you.
Your strong support of legalization of drug abuse
A particular case of my general strong support of individual liberty.
along with your inability/refusal to objectively consider *all* of the facts
Disagreeing with you does not equate to not being objective.
DRANO was not produced by man to drink. Beer and distilled spirits were. If man were perfect, you’d pretty much be out a religion, wouldn’t ya? None of which has much to do with this thread.
So? That has absolutely nothing to do with the many factors that cause illicit drug prices to be what they are, or that would impact their prices should they be widely legalized.
Since that claim is about those who already abuse, it doesn't even pretend to support your claim that "legalization will lead to more abusers." Legalization will decrease incentives to engage in abuse-favoring behaviors such as using as much as possible when one has an opportunity to use, and focusing one's time and thought on obtaining and using - and thus may very well lead to fewer abusers.
Again, that sounds like the idealistic utopianism always espoused by the pro-illicit drug legalization activists. There is absolutely no reason to think that removing the fear of getting arrested is going to cause drug addicts to buy fewer drugs. They'll be able to buy whenever they want, no fears, so, of course, they'll buy more. And if we accept your (still unsupported) premise that legal drugs will somehow be cheaper, they'll be able to buy even more drugs, and use even larger quantities.
Of course there will be more addicts. Legalizing drugs will open up all kinds of opportunities for drug pushers to solicit more customers... and they won't have to worry about being arrested to do so.
I cannot think of a single activity that became rarer after legalization--it hasn't happened with abortion, prostitution (where legalized), or gambling, and there is no reason to think that legalizing drug abuse will do anything other than increase its incidence.
Oh, I have to comment on the supposed self-control that drug abusers in your utopia will suddenly learn if drugs are made legal. One of the parts of the brain that is damaged by drug abuse is related to willpower and impulse control. That loss of self-control is a key component of addiction, and is one reason why rehab programs so often fail. Giving people who have no self-control unlimited access to drugs by making them legal is hardly going to result in addicts displaying restrained behavior around the drugs.
Your statement "That is not likely to change" is not a fact but an opinion, and a defeatist one at that - no sound basis for rationalizing further erosion of individual rights.
Seriously? You have not noticed the trend towards more and more people becoming dependent on government, and that there are a lot of politicians trying to accelerate that trend? Noting that is hardly a defeatist opinion--it is an appraisal of the current situation. The reality is that, even if the correct thing to do would be to refuse to support addicts who destroy their ability to function productively, letting them die, there is no way that will happen. Ever. Thus, the problem of drug addiction affects all of us, regardless of our individual opinions on welfare.
Your strong support of legalization of drug abuse
A particular case of my general strong support of individual liberty.
Let me put it this way: your support of illicit drug legalization is far too strong for me to think that you have no personal interest in this matter. Rarely do people so adamantly support something when they have no personal stake in the outcome. For example, elections are coming up in India later this year, but I don't see anyone talking about them since almost no one outside of India cares.
BTW, the idea that drug abusers are free is highly debatable. They become slaves to their addictions, to the point where even if they want to quit, they can't, and their whole lives are centered around feeding their addiction. That isn't what I consider "freedom."
Kudos for being the only legalization opponent I ever encountered who acknowledges that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
I'm a scientist. I'm in the business of collecting data.
Disagreeing with you does not equate to not being objective.
By objective, I mean looking honestly at the data. Clearly, the crime analyses show a strong association between drugs and crime--rather than look honestly at it, you tried to dismiss it. To be objective, you have to be able to look at the data honestly. The prevalence of crime that takes place in conjunction with drug use is far higher than the prevalence of drug use in the general population. Research is just now beginning to reveal just how much brain damage cannabis use causes. And so on. If there is an argument to be made for legalization, it has to take those (and other factors) into account. An argument that does not take *all* of the actual evidence into account is not valid.
Actually, ask the typical hard drug addict and they’ll tell you it all began when they were molested or otherwise abused.
Marijuana has been used medically for thousands of years.
The first depiction of its use is on a stelae in Egypt, being used by a woman in labor, over 4000 years ago.
So? That has absolutely nothing to do with the many factors that cause illicit drug prices to be what they are, or that would impact their prices should they be widely legalized.
Opposite - it's evidence that the impact of the legal status of a drug such as alcohol on its price is strong enough to clearly stand out from the 'noise' of the other factors.
Since that claim is about those who already abuse, it doesn't even pretend to support your claim that "legalization will lead to more abusers." Legalization will decrease incentives to engage in abuse-favoring behaviors such as using as much as possible when one has an opportunity to use, and focusing one's time and thought on obtaining and using - and thus may very well lead to fewer abusers.
There is absolutely no reason to think that removing the fear of getting arrested is going to cause drug addicts to buy fewer drugs. They'll be able to buy whenever they want, no fears, so, of course, they'll buy more. And if we accept your (still unsupported) premise that legal drugs will somehow be cheaper, they'll be able to buy even more drugs, and use even larger quantities.
Sounds like you're conflating users and abusers - which is illegitimate; even the use of the term ABuse acknowledges that it's something other than simple use. Yes, with the end of criminal penalties and a lowering in price akin to what happened with alcohol, there's a good chance adult use will increase - which is nobody's business but the adult users'. Again: as for more heavy use among existing abusers, many abusers have already taken great care to be able to indulge whenever they want.
Of course there will be more addicts. Legalizing drugs will open up all kinds of opportunities for drug pushers to solicit more customers... and they won't have to worry about being arrested to do so.
Sellers of legal drugs will be "pushers" only in the same sense that tobacco sellers are "pushers" - and each group will operate under whatever advertising and marketing restrictions the law calls for.
Oh, I have to comment on the supposed self-control that drug abusers in your utopia will suddenly learn if drugs are made legal.
Still sounds like you're conflating users and abusers - my observation that "legalization will decrease incentives to engage in abuse-favoring behaviors" was about non-abusing users less often becoming abusers.
Your statement "That is not likely to change" is not a fact but an opinion, and a defeatist one at that - no sound basis for rationalizing further erosion of individual rights.
Noting that is hardly a defeatist opinion--it is an appraisal of the current situation.
No, claims about change and its likelihood are inherently about the future. (Your appraisal of the current situation is correct.) No sound basis for rationalizing further erosion of individual rights.
BTW, the idea that drug abusers are free is highly debatable.
The fact that under legalization nonaddicted users are free is not debatable. And as stated in the original article, "research shows us that about 9 percent of people who experiment with pot will become dependent or abuse it" and therefore 91% never will.
The relationships shown are: some users committing crime to get money for drugs, already discussed in this post; and arrestees under the influence - which does not show that drug use causes crime but may very well simply reflect that the sort of people willing to break the existing drug laws are also willing to break other laws ... not exactly a news flash. [from post #202, text omitted by exDemMom]
along with your inability/refusal to objectively consider *all* of the facts [from post #201]
Disagreeing with you does not equate to not being objective.
By objective, I mean looking honestly at the data. Clearly, the crime analyses show a strong association between drugs and crime--rather than look honestly at it, you tried to dismiss it.
Firstly, your accusation of nonobjectivity came BEFORE I addressed the crime data, so couldn't have been based on it.
Secondly, I didn't "dismiss" the data but pointed out a likely explanation for the association other than pot-causes-crime.
Research is just now beginning to reveal just how much brain damage cannabis use causes.
I never denied that cannabis can be bad for the user's brain - I simply noted the absence of evidence for your claim that it causes "brain damage with even light usage."
And what makes you think God created mind altering substances to drink?
I believe I said that man created them.
__________________________________________________________________
Cannabinoids for the Treatment of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: An Updated Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
J Neuroimmune Pharmacol. 2015 Mar 22. [Epub ahead of print]
Abstract
An updated systematic review of randomized controlled trials examining cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews reporting on health care outcomes. Eleven trials published since our last review met inclusion criteria.
The quality of the trials was excellent. Seven of the trials demonstrated a significant analgesic effect. Several trials also demonstrated improvement in secondary outcomes (e.g., sleep, muscle stiffness and spasticity). Adverse effects most frequently reported such as fatigue and dizziness were mild to moderate in severity and generally well tolerated.
This review adds further support that currently available cannabinoids are safe, modestly effective analgesics that provide a reasonable therapeutic option in the management of chronic non-cancer pain.
Couple of crazed dope fiend hippie liberaltarians out to destroy our civilization.
Wrong. Legal status is NOT the driver of price. Supply and demand is. And while legality has an effect on both, many other factors also come into play. Without an in-depth study of the factors that affect the prices of each illicit drug, it is impossible to say why current prices are what they are, much less try to make predictions about what would happen to price in the event such-and-such a drug is legalized.
--Is the drug legal in some circumstances, but not in others?
--How easy is it to create the drug? (Marijuana requires growing facilities and several weeks to make; cocaine must be extracted from imported leaves; meth can be made from easily available chemicals; narcotics are manufactured under stringent conditions and diverted from their intended use; etc.)
--Is the drug naturally available in the US, or is it imported? How far must it travel?
And so on. It is a gross oversimplification to claim that legalization alone will make prices drop, and the experience of Prohibition does not give any insight. The fact that more people will feel comfortable using once a drug is legalized means that the demand goes up, which, by decreasing supply, will result in a price increase.
Sounds like you're conflating users and abusers - which is illegitimate; even the use of the term ABuse acknowledges that it's something other than simple use. Yes, with the end of criminal penalties and a lowering in price akin to what happened with alcohol, there's a good chance adult use will increase - which is nobody's business but the adult users'. Again: as for more heavy use among existing abusers, many abusers have already taken great care to be able to indulge whenever they want.
As I have already explained, alcohol is NOT a substance like illicit drugs. The fact that the body has built-in mechanisms that specifically evolved for the purpose of detoxifying alcohol means that it simply cannot do the damage that illicit (and many licit) drugs do.
The very biochemistry of illicit drugs, along with the physical brain changes that occur because of those biochemical reactions, makes it doubtful that it is even possible to engage in "casual" use without becoming addicted. Sure, alcohol abuse over the period of several years can cause damage--but that's a far cry from using something that causes permanent brain changes (caused at least in part by cell death) with every use.
And as stated in the original article, "research shows us that about 9 percent of people who experiment with pot will become dependent or abuse it" and therefore 91% never will.
That means that 91% of the people who try pot once or twice do not continue to use it.
Firstly, your accusation of nonobjectivity came BEFORE I addressed the crime data, so couldn't have been based on it.
I say that because I have not yet seen you actually address the issues of brain damage, the tendency of drug addicts to become useless, the fact that everyone is on the hook to provide food, shelter, and medical care to addicts (regardless of our personal feelings on the matter), or a lot of other negatives about drug use/abuse. Instead, you have quibbled endlessly about every single point, choosing to go on about alcohol as if factors pertinent to alcohol use are somehow relevant to illicit drug use. In fact, your whole argument for drug legalization rests on a fiction that drug use affects *only* the person using, and no one else, and that use is basically harmless. As long as you have to use a fiction to support your pro-legalization viewpoint, you are not being objective.
In order to be objective, you have to acknowledge what the scientific and sociological research about marijuana (and other drugs) actually show.
There may be valid pro-legalization arguments. But those arguments have to stand valid in light of everything that is known about illicit drug use/abuse.
...which does not show that drug use causes crime but may very well simply reflect that the sort of people willing to break the existing drug laws are also willing to break other laws...
Secondly, I didn't "dismiss" the data but pointed out a likely explanation for the association other than pot-causes-crime.
That's not a "likely explanation." Like everything else, the association between drugs and crime is complicated. Drug abusers *will* commit crime to get money for drugs (after their monthly welfare allotment runs out); drug abusers *do* commit violent crimes for reasons having nothing to do with money. Whether they are people who are innately willing to break the law is only a peripheral issue, and is, itself, a complicated matter. There are probably several reasons why crime and drug abuse are so closely related.
Having said that, hysterical Prohibitionists once wanted to imprison people for merely possessing or transferring alcohol.
That misguided notion was Tyrannical on its face, as is contraband law in general.
When the government has the power to imprison somebody for owning the wrong plant, medicine, or liquid spirits, then its power is essentially arbitrary.
Under such auspices, there is no practical limit to state power, and we clearly see the logical ramifications of such policy when we observe what has happened with the Fourth Amendment, asset forfeiture, and the right to privacy in general. All the bad things that come with an authoritarian nanny-state accrue.
As a classical liberal, I reject such a bloated, expansive, essentially unlimited view of government power, especially as it applies to the federal government.
Contraband law brings Tyranny, plain and simple. And the Tyranny that it brings far outweighs any benefits which could ever accrue, both in theory and in practice.
I much prefer the admittedly difficult challenges related to decriminalization. The nanny-state method has been tried for a century or more now, it's a failure, and it's Tyrannical to boot.
To my eyes, nanny-state prohibitionist authoritarians on the left and right seem to differ only on the details of whose version of Tyranny should prevail.
Wrong. Legal status is NOT the driver of price. Supply and demand is.
You keep rebutting statements I never made - show me where I said legal status is "the driver."
And while legality has an effect on both,
Exactly my point.
many other factors also come into play. Without an in-depth study of the factors that affect the prices of each illicit drug, it is impossible to say why current prices are what they are,
No, it's not impossible - the fact that alcohol's price was several times higher when it was illegal than when legal is clear evidence that legality of the drug was a key factor.
--Is the drug legal in some circumstances, but not in others?
Pot was more illegal so would have a greater price differential - its medical exception is only in certain states, alcohol had a few other exceptions that pot doesn't, and only in the latter part of alcohol prohibition was possession penalized. And other illegal drugs are even more illegal than that.
--How easy is it to create the drug? (Marijuana requires growing facilities and several weeks to make; cocaine must be extracted from imported leaves; meth can be made from easily available chemicals; narcotics are manufactured under stringent conditions and diverted from their intended use; etc.)
Agreed* - and since greater difficulty in creating the drug means less home-made and thus a greater legal/illegal price differential, that differential would be at least as great for those drugs as for alcohol.
*Last I heard, meth required pseudoephedrine, which has been made difficult to get in quantity - and meth requires a fair amount of effort in any case.
--Is the drug naturally available in the US, or is it imported? How far must it travel?
Since alcohol could be made in the US, and importation would boost the legal/illegal price differential, that differential would be at least as great for other drugs as for alcohol.
And so on. It is a gross oversimplification to claim that legalization alone will make prices drop,
Other factors could in principle outweigh the legal status - but that's not what happened with alcohol and you haven't cited a single factor that would make the differential less for any other drug.
and the experience of Prohibition does not give any insight.
Simply wrong no matter how often you repeat it - data is data.
The fact that more people will feel comfortable using once a drug is legalized means that the demand goes up, which, by decreasing supply, will result in a price increase.
Wrong in theory, since under legalization supply is better able to rise to meet demand - and contradicted by the data from alcohol.
Sounds like you're conflating users and abusers - which is illegitimate; even the use of the term ABuse acknowledges that it's something other than simple use. Yes, with the end of criminal penalties and a lowering in price akin to what happened with alcohol, there's a good chance adult use will increase - which is nobody's business but the adult users'. Again: as for more heavy use among existing abusers, many abusers have already taken great care to be able to indulge whenever they want.
As I have already explained, alcohol is NOT a substance like illicit drugs. The fact that the body has built-in mechanisms that specifically evolved for the purpose of detoxifying alcohol means that it simply cannot do the damage that illicit (and many licit) drugs do.
No, it doesn't mean that - every time an alcohol user becomes intoxicated to any degree (even 'relaxing' and 'unwinding') it is by consuming to a degree that overwhelms the body's detoxification mechanisms - which evolved only to handle rotting fruit.
The very biochemistry of illicit drugs, along with the physical brain changes that occur because of those biochemical reactions, makes it doubtful that it is even possible to engage in "casual" use without becoming addicted.
And yet the evidence is that many do - as already noted, 91% of people who experiment with pot never become dependent or abuse it.
Sure, alcohol abuse over the period of several years can cause damage--but that's a far cry from using something that causes permanent brain changes (caused at least in part by cell death) with every use.
Another claim you have yet to provide evidence for - an even stronger claim than your still-unsupported claim that it causes "brain damage with even light usage."
And as stated in the original article, "research shows us that about 9 percent of people who experiment with pot will become dependent or abuse it" and therefore 91% never will.
That means that 91% of the people who try pot once or twice do not continue to use it.
You have evidence that all of those 91% tried it only once or twice?
Firstly, your accusation of nonobjectivity came BEFORE I addressed the crime data, so couldn't have been based on it.
I say that because I have not yet seen you actually address the issues of brain damage,
I have yet to see evidence for your "with even light usage" or "with every use" claims. I heartily agree that regular serious intoxication over a long period is bad for the brain - whether the substance is alcohol or pot. I have noted that it's not government's business to protect adults from their own bad choices.
the tendency of drug addicts to become useless,
Uselessness is not against the law so is irrelevant to legalization.
the fact that everyone is on the hook to provide food, shelter, and medical care to addicts (regardless of our personal feelings on the matter),
I've addressed that at length - you simply don't like my answers.
Instead, you have quibbled endlessly about every single point,
I haven't "addressed" but I have "quibbled"? ROTFL!
choosing to go on about alcohol as if factors pertinent to alcohol use are somehow relevant to illicit drug use.
They are, as I have shown.
In fact, your whole argument for drug legalization rests on a fiction that drug use affects *only* the person using, and no one else,
No, as I said, it rests on the fact that not all negative effects are the proper business of government - only violations of rights, which drug use in and of itself is not.
and that use is basically harmless.
I never claimed nor implied that - perhaps that's the voices in your head.
...which does not show that drug use causes crime but may very well simply reflect that the sort of people willing to break the existing drug laws are also willing to break other laws...
Secondly, I didn't "dismiss" the data but pointed out a likely explanation for the association other than pot-causes-crime.
Whether they are people who are innately willing to break the law is only a peripheral issue
Because you say so?
Yup - the left wants to impose charity at the point of a gun whereas the right wants to impose sobriety at the point of a gun.
Man creates many things for his own evil desires and pleasures; many to his own demise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.