The legalization of drugs

Actually, haven't you posted your position before in earlier threads? I thought I had been through some of this before with you. IIRC we are both for legalization, but you are for gov't subsidy of its manufacture and distribution so all drugs will be free. Apparently you've never seen an addict. I live essentially right next door to a free drug clinic in Amsterdam. Some of them are pretty bad off, and as NJ suggests if they need something and can't get it right then, or enough of it right then, they trade and buy (sometimes from each other).But more to the point, who all is able to get this stuff? Unless you are going to allow foreign tourists to come in and get some free drugs, then they can sell to tourists (much as what happens right out my front door).Enterprising criminals could have a few people go in and get free drugs to create a stash to then sell in other nations. Sort of a reverse of the drug trade as it is.I agree that in theory your plan is nice, but it seems to lack practical value in that it sets up tax payers in a loss industry that will only benefit a very small % of the population, including criminals.Why can't market forces (uninflated by artificial pressure from the drug war) regulate it properly?And anyway, before this I'd want a lot more free things too. Full free medical, education, some housing and food.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That comment was a joke, followed by a counterexample to your claim. The reason for the joke being you countered NJ's argument with a statement of incredulity. As I have personally seen the counterexample supporting NJ's theory, regarding addicts, I made the statement you must never have seen an addict.Since you didn't see fit to answer anything but the joke, should I take it you have nothing serious to say on this topic?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I just clarified that it was a joke. You can continue to act as if I was making a real assumption, if that is what you want to assume, but the joke is over. ??? You made two statements in reply and neither had anything to do with the larger portion of my post.Here are the more pertinent points from my post including direct questions regarding your position... That was an observation which supports NJ's claim and raises questions regarding your claim to incredulity on the matter. Why would people buy something they can get for free? Answer: when they are extremely desperate and cannot get enough material, or fast enough, or to sell to others for other material/money. This was a chance for you to explain more of your position. Who is eligible for receiving the drugs? What would prevent people from getting material to sell to others (who are not part of the system)? Or, is everyone open to get material from this system? This is a direct question regarding why it is necessary to have drugs be free, rather than allow the market to handle cost. I suppose I could have added a concrete example. We currently allow for the sale of alcohol, which used to be a controlled substance (and so quite high priced). Is there a reason currently controlled substances would not follow that model?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I personally agree with everything up until: "Simple. Give the drugs away for free." With legalization, and subsidy, how will they be cash crops? The reason they are such money makers right now is because of heightened prices for their product, plus many crops are detroyed making backups profitable. 1) How widespread/numerous are these clinics, as well as their general opening times?
2) Who is available to get drugs from these clinics?
3) How much is available for a person?
4) Are they able to take the drugs outside of the clinic?
5) What happens for invalids/housebound?All of those points effect how markets can re-emerge.Also, what prevents organized crime from beginning a reverse trade, from the US to the rest of the world, using "stolen" free product as their source? As long as other nations have it as illegal, a market will exist.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

How can a question be a strawman? I asked "what prevents"? That was your chance to answer how your plan does or does not take that into consideration.If you truly believe in your plan, why are you being so obstinate in answering questions about it? I am not an inherent "enemy" of this plan, in that I happen to favor legalization, and see some theoretical merit. My reservations are practical concerns and I am trying to get you to explain how your system works. I should be one of the easiest sells on such a plan. Maybe we have a different definition of cash crop. Currently american farmers do make money from growing such things. They likely make more than they would under a full legalized setting as prices/revenue are vastly inflated today due to their illegality.Wouldn't the market drop out for its production? This was a serious part of my practical issue. Doesn't admitting this, suggest NJ's point was correct that your plan is more or less a theoretical issue?But we can even forget the US healthcare system's current state. Under a hypothetically better system, how many clinics would you have to have to provide coverage? Then what would prevent people from nations that have drugs as illegal, or don't have as big a distribution system, from getting free drugs and then selling them to others outside the US?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Modulous has brought up something that I was going to wait till preliminary issues of simply setting up such a system have been dealt with. Since it has been raised, let me move on.In your system, are drugs only allowed to be gotten from clinics, or are people free to grow/make their own drugs?In Amsterdam, where mj is decriminalized, the different kinds of mj are numerous. If people are allowed to grow or make their own then markets will spring up based on quality of product. Synthesized drugs could be an incredibly fast paced market (new materials created yearly).Are the federal programs supposed to compete with these independent operations as they arise? How will this be done?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

As a note, you use the term strawman rather carelessly. I am NOT saying you have said Y, and thus X. Given that I don't know what your system does about X, I am asking what it does.In any case, your original statement was about collapsing the criminal drug industry (including cartels). My question was if we set up a free system where drugs can be carried out freely, won't that be helping supply the criminal drug industry (including cartels)?Saying you don't care about other nations does not exactly answer that question. If we are to set up such a system, shouldn't we care about cartels abusing it to make money from poorer nations?Edited by holmes, : not

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Do you mean buy them out as producers, or just start buying their product, or what exactly?What is done to a producer who is unwilling to let go of their product (except via the market)? As far as I understand, no legitimate business could be coerced by the gov't to give up its "secret recipe" or produce for the gov't.Edited by holmes, : clarityEdited by holmes, : typo

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That would simply make it an issue you are not considering, and not a strawman. Mod rephrased my question and you seemed not to have a problem answering it.And as for that answer, you seem to be missing the point that what it does is set US taxpayers up as the suppliers for cartels. This can have a backlash as essentially setting ourselves up as a narcostate, with graft and corruption based on the money it would generate at taxpayer expense.Or let me make an analogy, that would be like having the US taxpayers buy autos so that all citizens can have a car, plus allowing companies to take them and sell them for profit (black market so untaxed).Why would Americans be better off paying for a solution which might anger other nations, as well as give free product to companies (where they will make a profit), instead of simply allowing the market to regulate the price internally?Why is alcohol not the model of what will occur?Edited by holmes, : No reason given.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You understand that this will let countless individuals create new drugs or variants (ie pot blends) and then simply jack up the price to get what they want from the US taxpayer?After all if the gov't has been given a mandate that this must happen, independents have the ability to artificially inflate prices, just like any other manufacturer. It's their product. If there is no choice available to the consumer (in this case the gov't) then the producer calls the shots.In fact, doesn't such a mandate essentially make the US gov't an addict? I have asked you at least once already, why drugs would not follow the same model as alcohol, so this answer seems strange to me. The US gov't doesn't buy any of the above to hand out free to the people (except perhaps vaccines). And they certainly don't go with any and all brands of things available.If you are going to mention these as your example, then why not have drugs be treated like those?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Having lived here to see it first hand, I simply have no idea why other nations would hesitate using this model. And it goes beyond just the bars.People can grow individual plants and (for me) to be at family gatherings where someone might have a plant among all the others (they are pretty), as well as adults smoking it just like cigarettes with no "ohhhhhhh" factor, its pretty cool.OT: I mentioned before that I liked your avatar. Where is it from/who created it? I generally feel mesmerized by it every time I'm replying to a post of yours.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm answering your last two posts to me in this one...It looks like you and I share some of the same questions regarding Jar's plans. Too bad it appears they will go unanswered. Ahhhh... another "perfect solution" unavailable to the unwashed masses. The dutch are not all as openminded as they are marketed to the world. The current PM (hopefully soon to be ex-PM) was actually calling for a reversal on mj tolerance. I have watched dutch people massively lay in to those that do dope and sometimes pretend ignorance that there are coffee shops and hash museums. Really, I'm not kidding. Heck, I've had people involved as tourist info guides pretend not to know such places existed as well as things like sex clubs and nudist beaches. "I don't think so, and anyway I wouldn't know about such things." Tut tut.Thus it is a sort of stalemate existence between people that are tolerant and those who are not. It should be added that though mj is tolerated there are still restrictions on its production and sale. Its not like you can simply start growing a farm of it.As I have mentioned they also have clinics for hard drug users. Frankly I disagree with your assessment of what decriminalization would lead to, though clearly your assessment is more accurate than Jar's. Addicts do sell and trade hard drugs, despite free access.Freedom would more likely allow the ability to choose better drugs rather than get forced into an addiction (of other products) because of artificial constraints on supply. Also the addicts (even if for some reason there were more) could be assured of a more safe supply, and treatment for their condition. In an illegal situation it is lose-lose. I am not a smoker, and intriguingly I have never used mj. Not even once. Despite being in the mecca of free dope, and been with friends and family who do use it, inside and outside of coffeeshops, I just don't have the urge.This sort of kills the argument for me that legalized drugs will result in tons of people using them. You have an interest in it, or you don't. And even those that have an interest in trying, may not want to continue with it. Once it is treated like anything else in life, it becomes like anything else in life.This has of course been supported by the failure of Prohibition and resultant return to normalcy for alcohol. I agree that hard drugs can be more addictive... but that does not suggest that more will be interested in taking them in the first place, especially with valid alternatives. Yes it is. Send away.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Heheheh... isn't the choice clearer than that?Do we want addicts relying on state support, or on petty crime and drug cartels UNTIL extensive law enforcement efforts find, try, and incarcerate them so that they are forced to rely on... more expensive... state support?I might add that in the latter scenario, not only are addicts pursued and put on state support, so are nonaddicts who never would have been.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I agreed with RJB's plan though I would disagree with his limit on meth, as well as your claim that legalizing any and all drugs would be counterproductive.First, I believe that access to less harsh/addictive drugs is likely to keep people from using the rougher stuff, regardless of their legality.Second, keeping really hard drugs illegal maintains a market in it, makes it hard for those who are addicted to get needed treatment, and continues to waste the same kind of resources picking up any and all people involved with these drugs... which never helps anyone.It is true that more people who use meth will become addicted than those who use other drugs, but that does not mean automatic doom for all such users, nor does illegality create a doorway out for the potential addict.If the problem is addiction and its effects, why can't this be handled with medical care for those who become addicted, and public service health info noting its deleterious effects?I might add that having professional labs producing things like meth, would allow for cleaner material, as well as perhaps research into safer alternatives and treatments, to move addicts onto.Edited by holmes, : ween move

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well it's just that availability of the other drugs will not eliminate the addicts who are already on it, as well as people who might want to try it. Keeping it illegal will keep those addicts in a sort of legal/health limbo, or hell.Many of their lives will be fucked up enough as it is, that it doesn't seem worth the effort to make them even worse.I suppose it could be legalized in a more limited way. For instance that a person can get it with a prescription from a doctor/clinic. In this way the clients will more or less be limited to addicts and those who really want to try it, and anyone doing so can be assured of less risk from amateur chemists making poison, or burning themselves up while trying to be amateur chemists themselves.I see these people pretty much everyday, and as depressing as they are, they seem to have lives that they lead according to their own standards, and I cannot justify their removal by the state.BTW, on your last two replies to me you put in the quote box "nj writes". At first I thought it was an accident but then it happened again and I noticed for everyone else you put their correct name. Is it just an odd coincidence, or do you think I'm NJ?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)