Oregon could become 1st US state to decriminalize hard drugs

ABC ^ | 10-30-20 | ANDREW SELSKY

[tinyowl]

Saying something won't work and saying Oregon has every right to implement it are totally reconcilable positions.

You say 'Apparently you agree with their decision, since you don't support a ban.'

See what I said above. You are conflating two questions, and either you are doing it sloppily or because you are trying to be right. I suspect the latter. This will be my last comment.

[NobleFree]

No I don't support a ban on alcohol, which doesn't mean I think it's a net positive for individuals or society.

Humans in general have decided the cost/benefit is worth it, for whatever reason

Apparently you agree with their ["Humans in general"] decision ["the cost/benefit is worth it" re alcohol], since you don't support a ban ["I don't support a ban on alcohol"]. What is YOUR reason for deciding the cost/benefit [of alcohol] is worth it?

You are conflating two questions

Wrong. I've annotated my post, above, to aid your comprehension.

[tinyowl]

We're done, and you're not welcome at my house.

I'd have no problem answering your questions but you seem like a little bit of a butt hole with an attitude so you're wasting my time.

[NobleFree]

I'd have no problem answering your questions but you seem like a little bit of a butt hole with an attitude

What a transparent evasion.

[nathanbedford]

At 78 I doubt there's much chance left for me to grow up. As for naïveté I am not without my experience, having prosecuted inmates who had drugs confiscated in the county jail-an astonishing amount of really scary paraphernalia.

My point is not to denigrate you, as you have done to me, in fact, I honor your service as a first responder. I do not disparage your service nor do I disparage you personally, but I do say that your views faithfully mirror the old cliché of exalting hope over experience. How many more decades of failure must we endure in this hopeless war against drugs?

When will we count up the collateral damage and compare it to whatever good we can do when patriotic first responders such as you do your best -but your best amounts to shoveling flies.

10 years ago I wrote this note which looks at this plague from the top down rather from your perspective which is in the trenches, bottom-up. I think it weathers well the passage of time:

If you want to know why the war on drugs is lost start thinking about it the way Adam Smith and Warren Buffett would think about it. Adam Smith would talk about the law of supply and demand and he tells us that when the demand goes up so does the price; when supply goes down, the price goes up. When the demand is inelastic, that is, when it is the product of addiction, the price curve is even more radical in its upward thrust when supply is reduced. Therefore, the more the government succeeds in interdicting the supply of addictive drugs, the more it increases the price and thereby increases the incentive to increase supply. The more the government succeeds, the more it must fail.

That is why drug smugglers and dealers are so wonderfully inventive in evading the law and will ever continue to be so.

Without putting words in Warren Buffett's mouth, his criteria for investing in an enterprise are well-known. He wants a company with a unique product and a huge market potential. What better than an addictive drug? He wants a business with high barriers to entry against competition. What better barrier than the law and what better barriers than drug enforcement agencies raiding your competitor? And if competition becomes too serious, this business model says you simply eliminate it by murdering them.

Buffett would be very intrigued by the idea that costs are extremely low, markup extremely high, and the price is ever supported by the government! By making drugs illegal, the government in effect has enacted price supports. By selling into an inelastic demand of addicts, the market as well as the price are virtually guaranteed.

Because the cost is high, addicts are incentivized to push the drugs onto others in order to addict them, to create a mini market that funds their own addiction. What a wonderful business model! On the macro level it is a multilevel marketing scheme on steroids, or should I say, powered by addiction, and supported by the government.

Meanwhile, this wonderful marketing scheme generates so much money that corruption is inevitable. Worse, our enemies in China, in the Muslim world and elsewhere have exploited this market to our disadvantage and national security peril. Meanwhile, our only politically correct response is a full throated roar: "do more of the same."

[fireman15]

My point is not to denigrate you, as you have done to me

I went through my last post to you; I am not sure which parts you feel denigrated by. I thought that we were having lively discussion and I was not offended by anything that you posted. In fact now that you have told me that you have worked as a prosecutor I salute your service.

Please be more specific regarding which part of my post was offensive to you and I will try and be more careful not to hurt your delicate sensibilities in the future.

Approximately 70,000 people in the USA have been dying from drug overdoses each year. Western Washington is not considered a hotspot but I went to a large number of OD deaths during my career. And this does not take into account the other tolls of substance abuse in our area.

As distasteful as enforcement of rules protecting consumers of dangerous substances may have been to you as a prosecutor... your efforts were not in vain. Legalizing marijuana in Washington State has resulted in a huge increase in consumption over the past few years. Marijuana sales have now surpassed both alcohol and tobacco sales combined. If the same trend were to occur in the sales of substances that often result in OD deaths... we would be looking at a large increase in these types of fatalities. But the social problems created would be even greater.