Good drugs, bad drugs, legal drugs, illegal drugs

You recommend legalisation and easing of access.A general rule of thumb when it comes to consumables tells us that as access simplifies > consumption goes up. In the case of illicit drugs the simplification of access would take the form of legalisation (dismantling the current restraint supplied by illicitedness), reduced price (enabled by removal of the drugs cartels and production by efficient methods), ease of access ( available on the street corner instead of down dark alleyways), reduction of hazard (enabled by certainty of source).What you suggest would , it would seem, result in an increase in consumption by people currently prohibited from partaking by the above restraints. Have you take account of this in your forecast?

dvd players, automobiles, organic food, paracetamol, alcohol, blue-ray. I'm waiting for the price of ipads to fall to a fraction of the current price myself. It's kind of self-evident really: remove reasons to abstain from the consumption of that which is attractive and consumption will increase. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Consumption is falling. And? Ditto above.AbE: Overall consumption falling doesn't necessarily alter the fact that the elimination of restraining factors causes an (relative to what otherwise would be the case) increase in consumption.

quote:

---

AIMS: We conducted a systematic review of studies examining relationships between measures of beverage alcohol tax or price levels and alcohol sales or self-reported drinking. A total of 112 studies of alcohol tax or price effects were found, containing 1003 estimates of the tax/price-consumption relationship.

---

quote:

---

CONCLUSIONS: A large literature establishes that beverage alcohol prices and taxes are related inversely to drinking. Effects are large compared to other prevention policies and programs. Public policies that raise prices of alcohol are an effective means to reduce drinking.

---

SourceEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Of course what? You don't see the correlation between dismanting fences to consumption and increasing consumption? I would imagine you'd want to do a cost-benefit analysis before making currently illicit drugs more freely available. Consider that your action could produce more people addicted to/negatively affected by drugs than the current policy does.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I was dealing with a view which would: Currently drugs cost folk money. This policy would ensure drugs cost no money. A current (significant) impediment to consumption eliminated would produce (according to the aforementioned rule of thumb) an increase in drug consumption. That doesn't strike me as an intelligent policy.Your point seems to deal with only addicts so perhaps we're ships passing?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

It's generally considered a negative thing. If a policy produces a negative result then it's not usually considered a good policy.

Fair enough. If you don't see increased consumption of addictive/damaging substances as a negative thing then there really isn't much to discuss.- The current system is a relative failure. Relative to a better system that is. Unless the alternative can reasonably be expected to improve on the current then there is no reason to change. The fact that the current has failings doesn't mean anything else is better.Edited by iano, : No reason given.