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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (8553)	1/9/2006 2:33:17 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541299

I may come back to your detailed list of questions tomorrow if I am feeling philosophical. It's too late here to go into each point. My one point now is that the argument of us encouraging permissiveness is moot - anyone who wants to use drugs can and probably does use them whenever they like. A small percentage end up in the criminal justice system, but the drug culture exists largely untouched and "permitted" de facto if not de jure. One more point - some drugs are addictive (heroin and cocaine) while others are not, like marijuana, mushrooms, hashish and probably others. I did a lot of non-addictive drugs in college with non-criminal fellow students and never felt the slightest urge to cross the gateway to harder stuff, despite the ease with which I could have. Just one data point.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (8553)	1/10/2006 5:34:24 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541299

Some thoughts in the light of a new day: But I wonder what activity these folks will then engage in in order to remain "illegal" and rebellious? What will replace currently illegal drugs as they search for something more illicit and dangerous in order to prove how "bad" they are? If you look at the Netherlands as an example, there is little or no direct replacement of criminalized drugs with other crime. It's the only direct experiment I know of, and I know it well after living there for two years. Imagine if ghetto crack dealers no longer made money on the street corner. What else could they offer with similar demand? Nothing I can think of. They are out of business as bad guys. Also, what price will we pay by making drugs legal and their access routine for legal users? Can anyone really be a "social user" of such addictive drugs? As E noted, we would save tens of billions in law enforcement and prison costs. So any other unexpected costs can be offset easily, i.e. building more treatment centers. Remember, all those addicts can ALREADY get all the drugs they can pay for. I would be surprised to see any increase in the total number of addicts. Compared to alcohol and tobacco addiction, I don't see how the costs would be any worse than present. And what will be the cost socially and economically from such a level of permissiveness? Will the government guarantee the lowest possible price for drug users, or will they still face the problem (being primarily poor and minority) of coming up with the cash to get their daily "fix"? No simple answer to that one. The drugs would be cheaper, that is for sure, once the criminal cost premium is taken out. Certainly the need to commit crimes for drug cash would go down with lower price. And again, the question of permissiveness is moot since drug users buy and use drugs easily today. I can certainly understand the pragmatic side of just acknowledging that certain people are always going to be living on the "fringe" and breaking social norms of behavior and thus, the allure of drug legalization/liberalization. It's more than an idealistic or emotional step. It's a public policy question of how we deploy tens of billions of dollars in public resources, wisely for in an act of futility. But don't we have to ask ourselves whether enabling such social irresponsibility is not to the detriment of those of us who operate within mutually beneficial social norms of behavior? The social irresponsibility has been 98% enabled in the current system. The point is moot. Would you rather have a drug addict carjacking you for a fix, or sitting on the curb outside a government-authorized drug outlet, too stoned to move? How about having him in a free treatment center, paid for with the budget that used to go for busting petty dealers? What's the cost to the rest of society of saying "It's OK to be addicted?" What's the cost now for saying "We can stop all illegal drug production, importation, sales and use" and failing miserably despite decades of our best efforts? No one is condoning addiction. But addiction exists now while drugs are illegal. Don't you want a better chance to reduce crime and addiction? The current system offers no hope that the drug scene will ever be any different than today, or like it was in 1975.