This is an absolutely beautiful post I read at Speakout.com. Give it a read, you will be glad you did
In a capitalist society, as long as there is a market
for a product, there will be some industrious person
who will deliver it. Therefore, as long as people are
willing to take drugs, there will be those who will be
willing to supply them.
This being given, we can attack the problem a number
of ways. First, eliminate the demand. That involves
locking up all the addicts and recreational users in
the country. I have not looked at recent numbers, but
when I was in high school, the gov't estimated that
74% of all high school students had at least tried pot
once. Since locking up the majority of the country is
probably not a realistic option, let's table that idea.
Next, eliminate the supply. But then, is this really a
doable idea? If we eliminate all of the coca plants in
Peru, which we basically did in the 70's and 80's,
what is to stop the industry from relocating to, say,
Columbia, which is what it did? If we spend the decade
or two eradicating coca from Columbia, will the
cocaine shipments stop, or just come from somewhere
else? Again, in a capitalist society, as long as there
is a demand, there will be a supply to meet it. If the
gov't intervenes and tries to stop it, the supply will
just become more expensive. More expensive drugs
create more profit for dealers, making dealing more
lucritive. Since disputes over price or quantity or
sales area are inevitable, in a more lucritive market
disputes will be more acrimonious. The two sides
cannot bring their disputes to civil court, since the
dispute is over an illegal activity. Therefore the
litigents use violence to settle disputes.
The cost of the product also increases violence. As
cost goes up, a user, especially an addict, will find
it more and more difficult to purchase his/her
necessary quantity of drugs from a salary from a
normal, legitimate job. The addict must therefore turn
to crime and/or violence. The addict has no choice.
There is a reason that smokers do not ordinarily turn
to crime to purchase cigarettes. Nicotene is as
addictive as heroine, according to scientific studies
on lower animals. Yet smokers are not the violent
bunch that herione addicts seem to be. This is because
cigarettes are legal and relatively inexpensive,
though the government is taxing them enough to attempt
to make them cost prohibitive.
So we see that any attempt to eliminate the supply
would only increase price and violence. Probably not
what the government is after, I hope.
The third, and seemingly most reasonable and workable
solution is to remove the criminal statutes all
together. This does not mean making drugs available to
any nine year old (though they basically are now).
Drugs can be treated the same way any legal mood
altering substance is treated, like alcohol or
tobacco. Sell to adults only. Adults who arguably can
make their own decision about whether or not they
choose to smoke pot or crack or what ever else they
wish to introduce to their bodies. It is, after all,
their body. Who am I to determine how much risk they
should assign to their own lives?
Since the transport risk is gone in this case, the
price returns to reasonable levels. Regulated
companies will enter the distribution market
(pharmaceuticals and tobacco companies, probably).
This decreases overhead and also decreases price. The
free market system will also help bring prices down,
because sales districts will no longer be exclusive.
The lower price and higher availability will remove
the profit motive from illegal sales to minors,
effectively putting the dealer out of business.
Drug related street violence due to turf wars will
virtually disappear. Drug related violence by addicts
will substancially decrease proportionally with the
decreasing prices.
And finally, since corporations will be accountable
for the product they sell to the public, purity and
dosage will be strictly regulated. Accidental
overdoses will virtually disappear.
What the country needs to do is stop moralizing about
the evils of drug use in the way the prohibitionists
did in the twenties. America discovered how
practiacally infeasible it is to legislate what
someone can ingest. Why they think it will work with
other drugs, after almost a century of trying, is a
mystery. It is obvious it has not worked. A trip to
your local middle school will bear that out. It is
easier to get a dime bag there than a six pack. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else - Declaration of the Rights of Man- Marquis de Lafayette, Thomas Jefferson 1789
Vote for a candidate that will end the drug war. Whether it be Nader or Browne, let us finally take a stand.
In a capitalist society, as long as there is a market
for a product, there will be some industrious person
who will deliver it. Therefore, as long as people are
willing to take drugs, there will be those who will be
willing to supply them.
This being given, we can attack the problem a number
of ways. First, eliminate the demand. That involves
locking up all the addicts and recreational users in
the country. I have not looked at recent numbers, but
when I was in high school, the gov't estimated that
74% of all high school students had at least tried pot
once. Since locking up the majority of the country is
probably not a realistic option, let's table that idea.
Next, eliminate the supply. But then, is this really a
doable idea? If we eliminate all of the coca plants in
Peru, which we basically did in the 70's and 80's,
what is to stop the industry from relocating to, say,
Columbia, which is what it did? If we spend the decade
or two eradicating coca from Columbia, will the
cocaine shipments stop, or just come from somewhere
else? Again, in a capitalist society, as long as there
is a demand, there will be a supply to meet it. If the
gov't intervenes and tries to stop it, the supply will
just become more expensive. More expensive drugs
create more profit for dealers, making dealing more
lucritive. Since disputes over price or quantity or
sales area are inevitable, in a more lucritive market
disputes will be more acrimonious. The two sides
cannot bring their disputes to civil court, since the
dispute is over an illegal activity. Therefore the
litigents use violence to settle disputes.
The cost of the product also increases violence. As
cost goes up, a user, especially an addict, will find
it more and more difficult to purchase his/her
necessary quantity of drugs from a salary from a
normal, legitimate job. The addict must therefore turn
to crime and/or violence. The addict has no choice.
There is a reason that smokers do not ordinarily turn
to crime to purchase cigarettes. Nicotene is as
addictive as heroine, according to scientific studies
on lower animals. Yet smokers are not the violent
bunch that herione addicts seem to be. This is because
cigarettes are legal and relatively inexpensive,
though the government is taxing them enough to attempt
to make them cost prohibitive.
So we see that any attempt to eliminate the supply
would only increase price and violence. Probably not
what the government is after, I hope.
The third, and seemingly most reasonable and workable
solution is to remove the criminal statutes all
together. This does not mean making drugs available to
any nine year old (though they basically are now).
Drugs can be treated the same way any legal mood
altering substance is treated, like alcohol or
tobacco. Sell to adults only. Adults who arguably can
make their own decision about whether or not they
choose to smoke pot or crack or what ever else they
wish to introduce to their bodies. It is, after all,
their body. Who am I to determine how much risk they
should assign to their own lives?
Since the transport risk is gone in this case, the
price returns to reasonable levels. Regulated
companies will enter the distribution market
(pharmaceuticals and tobacco companies, probably).
This decreases overhead and also decreases price. The
free market system will also help bring prices down,
because sales districts will no longer be exclusive.
The lower price and higher availability will remove
the profit motive from illegal sales to minors,
effectively putting the dealer out of business.
Drug related street violence due to turf wars will
virtually disappear. Drug related violence by addicts
will substancially decrease proportionally with the
decreasing prices.
And finally, since corporations will be accountable
for the product they sell to the public, purity and
dosage will be strictly regulated. Accidental
overdoses will virtually disappear.
What the country needs to do is stop moralizing about
the evils of drug use in the way the prohibitionists
did in the twenties. America discovered how
practiacally infeasible it is to legislate what
someone can ingest. Why they think it will work with
other drugs, after almost a century of trying, is a
mystery. It is obvious it has not worked. A trip to
your local middle school will bear that out. It is
easier to get a dime bag there than a six pack. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else - Declaration of the Rights of Man- Marquis de Lafayette, Thomas Jefferson 1789
Vote for a candidate that will end the drug war. Whether it be Nader or Browne, let us finally take a stand.
For one thing, what is legal and what is illegal is left up to one of the most corrupt organizations in existence: the FDA. If you want me to I can show you countless examples of harmless drugs (in some cases amino acids for the love of god) being banned in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. They lie, they demonize, and they brainwash. Here are some questions to ask yourself:
Facebook
Twitter