Do you really think demand for heroin or crack would be inelastic if it is as cheap and ubiquitous as popcorn? Cartels and organized crime will surely make heroin available for those who can’t jump through all the hoops at a liquor store.
Plenty of people in a weak, experimental or overly self-confident moment will try something that promises a huge high — if it is put on the table in front of them.
Take heroin once and you could be hooked for life. A 25 percent chance you will. Fortunately, with heroin currently illegal, most of us don’t get that chance.
Once again, why are we talking about national bans on 100-proof cheeseburgers? Why waste energy, in your words, talking about that? It is totally irrelevant what you or I think about such a crazy ban. It is much more realistic to keep existing laws in place and draw a bright clear line against hard drugs.
As are alcohol, tobacco, and bacon double cheeseburgers.
Who among us is asking for prohibition on alcohol and cheeseburgers? That is politically impossible, even if we wanted to do it.
The point is that if you're really concerned about "harm to the body" as you claim to be, you should at least want and ask for those bans as well as continuation of the marijuana ban (whether you invest energy in those goals is a different question). If you can't even bring yourself to say, "Yes, I favor bans on all things that are harmful to the body" then your "harmful to the body" argument against marijuana is merely a smokescreen.
As for banning alcoholic-double cheeseburgers, it is politically impossible. It’s an irrelevant issue. Why even discuss it?
Already answered just above: If you can't even bring yourself to say, "Yes, I favor bans on all things that are harmful to the body" then your "harmful to the body" argument against marijuana is merely a smokescreen. (Whether you invest energy in those goals is a different question.)
Once again, why are we talking about national bans on 100-proof cheeseburgers? Why waste energy, in your words, talking about that? It is totally irrelevant what you or I think about such a crazy ban.
You keep asking that question even after I've answered it twice. Do you have such a low opinion of your fellow FReepers that you think they won't notice?
The answer, for the THIRD time: If you can't even bring yourself to say, "Yes, I favor bans on all things that are harmful to the body" then your "harmful to the body" argument against marijuana is merely a smokescreen. (Whether you invest energy in those goals is a different question.)
Your compromise solution – the heroin-and-Jack Daniels utopia —
What's your ideal policy on Jack Daniels?
I missed your reply to this question.
I missed your reply to this question.
I missed your reply to this question.
and more abundant than today.
Much more abundant? I see no reason to believe that there are millions of adults who are deterred from hard drug use by its illegality but who would be undeterred by its inherent self-harms.
If you can’t understand the law of supply and demand, you understand nothing at all. There will certainly be more demand when heroin and crack are everywhere.
If you can’t understand elsaticity of demand, you understand nothing at all. Market economics encompasses the possibility that demand for a good rises little or not at all as availability increases or price drops - that is, that demand for the good may be inelastic.
Frail humans will be less worried about “self-harm” it heroin is as cheap and ubiquitous as popcorn.
Hard liquor is not as cheap and ubiquitous as popcorn - there's no reason to expect legal heroin would be.
Do you really think demand for heroin or crack would be inelastic if it is as cheap and ubiquitous as popcorn?
Educate yourself - elasticity is independent of change in price or availability, and if elasticity is low or zero demand will change little or not at all with even a substantial change in price or availability.
And as I said: "Hard liquor is not as cheap and ubiquitous as popcorn - there's no reason to expect legal heroin would be."
Cartels and organized crime will surely make heroin available for those who can’t jump through all the hoops at a liquor store.
What "hoops"? Have you ever been to a liquor store?
It’s called being placed in a position of temptation.
There is no evidence for widespread temptation toward the (in many locations) readily available thrill of "breezing" (http://www.kcchronicle.com/2014/06/18/police-chief-teen-was-breezing-before-he-was-struck-by-a-train/aqpu3pv/).
Plenty of people in a weak, experimental or overly self-confident moment will try something that promises a huge high — if it is put on the table in front of them.
"Put on the table in front of them"?! A second ago it was "jumping through all the hoops"! Try to keep your story straight from one sentence to the next.
So are YOU one of these supposed "weak, experimental or overly self-confident" people? Or are you spouting the usual liberal arrogance about how people aren't fit to decide how to live their lives so you have to decide for them?
Take heroin once and you could be hooked for life. A 25 percent chance you will.
No, a 23% chance you will at some point be dependent - as opposed to 15% for the legal drug alcohol. Dependencies can be successfully held in check by those who want to; there are 12-step programs and treatment centers all across the country.