Legalize drugs to stop the violence...

[Polemicvol]

An economist explains how prohibition always results in violence and that legalizing illict behaviors will end violence in that industry. That decision will also fix the problems currently overwhelming Mexico.

Legalize drugs to stop the violence... (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html)


Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.

Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after.

Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.

The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons.

[ZippyVol]

I agree!

Now get the rest of your netroot progressive nerd guys to convince Obama it's a good idea.

[Polemicvol]

in some of the obviously failed policies of the past. We must reform drug laws and release drug offenders from prison. We need to bulldoze prisons and build schools and drug treatment centers.

But I think the politically palatable action, will be the Federal Government leaving drug enforcement to the local governments. The Obama administration has already announced that decision and won't go after California Cannabis Co-ops. New York just reformed their legal code to throw out the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws from the 1970s and instead move toward treatment instead of incarceration.

I think they believe that success in decriminalizing drugs will start at the local and state level and then spread nationally. That will be politically easier than the Feds trying to convince Alabama yahoos that they shouldn't throw their minority populations into prisons for smoking dope.

The South will catch up to the rest of America on drug laws in a couple of decades. Hopefully the relaxation of the hammerlock Southern Republicans had on the Federal government will allow states to pursue more humane and more common sense solutions to drug issues.

[Blacksheepvol]

I disagree. Anyone over the age of 25 should get the death penalty on their first drug offense.








Actually, no, I agree. Legalize it, tax the hell out of it, then use the taxes on treatment. The taxes MUST exceed the societal cost, though.

[ZippyVol]

Actually, no, I agree. Legalize it, tax the hell out of it, then use the taxes on treatment. The taxes MUST exceed the societal cost, though.


Dont disagree with that, either. But, you can only tax so much until the tax itself becomes de facto criminalization. So long as they stay somewhere short of that.

[Polemicvol]

in the first place. They used the Interstate Commerce Act to require tax stamps on Marijuana anywhere in America. But the Feds refused to issue any tax stamps. So anyone in caught with pot without a tax stamp, was breaking the law. But you couldn't buy reefer tax stamps.

Nice scam, wasn't it?

Nixon later set up drug schedules to control various drugs and pot was labeled a schedule 1 narcotic, with no medical use, thus banned completely. Which is an absolute joke.

[ZippyVol]

But I think the politically palatable action, will be the Federal Government leaving drug enforcement to the local governments.

I'm cool with that. I'm good with that (leaving it as much to the local governments as possible) on most subjects, actually.


The Obama administration has already announced that decision and won't go after California Cannabis Co-ops.

Yeah, he did promise that didnt he?

Interestingly, we were JUST talking about broken promises the other day. So I think I should probably point this out, from just a couple days ago:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/25/BA5B16N9LR.DTL


(03-25) 22:05 PDT San Francisco -- Federal agents raided a medical marijuana dispensary in San Francisco Wednesday, a week after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder signaled that the Obama administration would not prosecute distributors of pot used for medicinal purposes that operate under sanction of state law.

So, like I said:

1) You progressive loons need to convince your golden boy it's a good idea.

2) Obama is not going to keep all his promises.

Moving on...




I think they believe that success in decriminalizing drugs will start at the local and state level and then spread nationally. That will be politically easier than the Feds trying to convince Alabama yahoos that they shouldn't throw their minority populations into prisons for smoking dope.

This may be the first (and only) time I ever actually even remotely defend Alabama's state government in any way shape or form, but; there is actually a bill in the Alabama house legalizing Medical Marijuana this session.

No, it won't pass. It's surprising to me that it ever made it there in the first place, which if you actually know anything about Alabama above and beyond the caricatures is encouraging progress in a number of ways. I'm personally hoping the AG picks this as a hotbutton issue when he decides to go for the throne...without getting into any details none of you likely care about, I'll just say that one will be interesting with all his baggage.


The South will catch up to the rest of America on drug laws in a couple of decades. Hopefully the relaxation of the hammerlock Southern Republicans had on the Federal government will allow states to pursue more humane and more common sense solutions to drug issues.

Would be cool, but unlikely. The fed is not going to give up power during Democratic majority control. Please tell me that you are deluded enough to actually believe that is possible. They are going to grab for more; particularly in areas which they view as solidifying their majority control. Republican majority control would not be any different, sure. It just is not in the nature of either party to cede any control whatsoever once they have it. It's politics.

What you are talking about would be a helluva lot more likely with split control. Particularly more likely, on this subject I think, if the Republicans held the white house and the dems congress (along with a more moderate/liberal USSC).

[GhenghisVol]

I'm in favor of legalizing LSD, marijuana, and MDMA. If the government has anything else they want to gift the public thats better than this stuff (and they have it) you can add that to the list.

Here's some info for you guys, it wasnt Reagan (or GHWB) that brought about Glasnost, it was a box full of MDMA. and it took down the Wall. Now you know the rest of the story, and any of you guys that have had a hit of X in the last 10-12 years and think you know what MDMA is missed the boat.

[LegendofNation]

Yeah, the more drugs we have in circulation, the less drug related crime we will have.

Outstanding logic.

Lets take it a step further. Lets just outlaw all laws, then no crimes will be committed, no one will be in prison. Think of the money we could save! Oh wait wait wait, we could tax people who kill someone, tax rapists, child molesters. The possibilities are endless!

[Orangebutt]

So, leggo....what's the worst thing that can happen if we legalize most drugs and start getting drug USERS out of prison?

[LegendofNation]

So, leggo....what's the worst thing that can happen if we legalize most drugs and start getting drug USERS out of prison?


Uh, tens of millions of more people on the street that would do anything to get high?

But evidently thats appealing to you.

[Athenian]

Catch a dealer. Give him a quick fair trial. Then hang him. Take the dealers out of prison and hang them. This way we reduce the prison population. This way we don't need treatment centers and don't spend money on rehab. Corpse don't need rehab.

[aadicof]

It's a supply side vs. consumer side issue. We're putting the consumers and the low level suppliers in jail. If it gets legalized, then we take a big swipe at the supply side of the problem, which is where a lot of the violence comes from. (and yes Leggo, I'm well aware of the junkies mugging old ladies and knocking over liquor stores for money). If its legalized then you introduce legitimate competition into the marketplace, which transforms the whole process.

On a side note, to have alcohol legal and pot illegal is just hypocritical to me.

[Orangebutt]

Don't you realize that nothing is stopping them now? Anybody who wants drugs can get them and they will steal from YOU if they have to. Making them harder to get only drives up the price...not the demand.

Millions of folks use illegal drugs in the US RIGHT NOW. The least considered component of their use is whether it's illegal or not. Our prisons are busting at the seams and we are ALL paying to house these guys - they're taking our money for sure this way and it doesn't do a thing to help those incarcerated as they can get stuff in prison as well.

Other laws wouldn't change - under aged consumption would be illegal - public intoxication would be illegal - selling drugs would be illegal (you must be a licensed, taxed entity). What we are doing now is not working.....and we're throwing billions away in the process.

[Polemicvol]

But I'm very convinced that modern drug laws were mainly designed to target minorities and combined with felony voting laws, are very useful in reducing the voting turnout of said minorities. So it is highly unlikely that southern states will embrace de-criminalization, for political reasons alone.

I saw that about the Feds raiding a Cannabis co-op in San Francisco. My understanding of the new Obama Administration drug policy, is that the Feds won't act unless state drug laws are being violated. Although it wasn't in your link, I understand the Feds caught employees from this co-op selling pot outside the business. A violation of California state drug laws.

But I think this illustrates another problem for the Obamaites. The culture of the FBI and DEA are very, very right wing. They are likely going to resist the reforms Obama will introduce. So I don't think it's a flip flop in policy, or a reversal in policy. It think it's a Special Agent in Charge that is a winger and disagrees with these new rules and is testing the waters. We shall see, but I predict similar issues throughout the Federal Government for the next few years.

I had a buddy in Charleston, who's brother was a Secret Service agent assigned to protect President Clinton. He said they hated Clinton (this guy and his brother were hard core extremist radcons), and he said they called protecting Clinton "garbage duty". I asked why, and he said, cause if any shooting breaks out, we are going to have been too preoccupied with picking up garbage on the street, rather than protecting Clinton.

That's some of the same attitude facing Obama.

[Polemicvol]

Says we spent 44 billlion dollars last year on failed drug law enforcement. And legalization and taxation of drugs would produce 30 billion dollars a year in tax revenue. That's a 74 billion dollar a year windfall for our economy, and I don't think that counts what we spend to prosecute and incarcerate drug users.

That 30 billion dollars a year in tax revenue is now going to criminal gangs and criminal organizations, it's going to bribe public officials and police officers, that money is destroying Mexico and America.

Legalizing drugs, regulating them, and taxing them is the only solution. We've tried the alternative for too many years and it hasn't worked.

[Orangebutt]

Add to your number the price it's costing to keep these guys locked up for years on end (I think the number is around forty thousand a year per prisoner). I just think that nothing we did at this point could be less effective than what we're doing now.

[Orangebutt]

regarding the Clinton years. I don't recall the book or the author as I read it years ago, but he said that the Clintons (particularly Hillary) treated the CIA and FBI agents that had Whitehouse posts, like shit.....when they acknowledged their presence it was to cuss at them. I actually spoke to a retired secret service agent who served in that whitehouse who said the EXACT same thing.....The Clintons were hated alright.....but it had nothing to do with politics.......

[aadicof]

I'm not so sure I'd do it for financial reasons, they'd have that money spent (whoever is in charge) before Gh could take a bad trip. Although that would be a nice side benefit.

Question- To what extent should legalized drugs be taken? Obviously pot, but cocaine, X, heroin? What about meth? How do you regulate something that has brick acid in it?

I'm still in my fact gathering stage on this issue. Thankee.

[ZippyVol]

I had a buddy in Charleston, who's brother was a Secret Service agent assigned to protect President Clinton. He said they hated Clinton (this guy and his brother were hard core extremist radcons), and he said they called protecting Clinton "garbage duty". I asked why, and he said, cause if any shooting breaks out, we are going to have been too preoccupied with picking up garbage on the street, rather than protecting Clinton.


I know a guy from college; who ended up assigned to Hillary for a little bit. He didnt really ever go into any detail (he didnt offer any, I really did not ask)...but the way he talked about it was light years from your buddy's brother. Maybe times have changed, maybe Hillary is more liked (which I would doubt) than Bill. Not really mentioning that to make any type of point really other than to just share a snippet that was shared with me a while ago.

I do agree that Obama is going to get alot of...uh... "attitude"; but that's not really anything new for any president regardless of power. The thing is though, the people with attitude dont really have much say in anything for the time being. As far as presidential powers go, Obama is going to face minimal interference (at least than he would if, say, the Pubs actually had some useful numbers in congress).

[ZippyVol]

Question- To what extent should legalized drugs be taken? Obviously pot, but cocaine, X, heroin? What about meth? How do you regulate something that has brick acid in it?

Its always about where you draw the line. No honest argument for legalization is going to be completely end sum, yes/no, 'it's all legal or illegal' question. It's never been about that.

The question here, to me, is just about why we set the line allowing something like alcohol yet simultaneously outlawing marijuana (which, comparatively speaking, is fairly benign).

[gallavol]

I think we need to start with MJ and work our way from there. I can't ever see meth being legal, it turns people into monsters.

[Blacksheepvol]

Zombies, actually


I think we need to start with MJ and work our way from there. I can't ever see meth being legal, it turns people into monsters.

[stonersboners]

An economist explains how prohibition always results in violence and that legalizing illict behaviors will end violence in that industry. That decision will also fix the problems currently overwhelming Mexico.

Legalize drugs to stop the violence... (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html)



uhhh....yeah.....uhhhhh....leaglize drugs.....uhhhh that would be cool....

I would have never grown up.