Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (2960)	6/11/1999 5:04:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

It was a pretty good post, actually. However, if the case of liquor consumption is unique, as I have previously argued, then one should not confidently draw lessons from Prohibition. After that, there is not much left to the argument. Either drugs are a commodity like other things, and therefore cost affects usage (including costs like risk and the necessity of foraging), or they are not. If they are, I am probably right. If they are not, one has to explain why. The strongest argument that you have is that usage would not be affected enough to justify the costs of enforcement, or of creating an incentive for a well armed criminal class, and that is the reason that I think it was a pretty good post, you seem to have been feeling your way toward the core argument.However, that is difficult to determine. If the criminal element would always find niches, then it is irrelevant. If the cost of enforcement is weighed against the fear of a flooded black market, since legalization would make it easier for minors and others to get their hands on hard drugs, then it is possible that it is simply worth it...