Would a regulation of narcotics rid us of drug and gang wars?

[BigToque]

In Vancouver the police have finally admitted they're in the middle of a gang war and it's being fueled by cocaine. 12 people dead since January. Quite frankly, I don't care if they're offing themselves, but it puts a lot of innocent people at risk as well.

I often hear that if the government were to legalize and regulate the sale of [insert currently illegal drug here], it would eliminate the black market and therefore also eliminate the violent actions of those competing for market share.

What are the black markets like for alcohol and cigarettes today?

Obviously if the drugs were made legal, there would be a big spike in usage, deaths, violent behaviour, etc, but it should theoretically drop back down to a visible baseline.

Do you think this baseline would include a greater percentage of the population?

What overall effect would legal narcotics have?

Quite a few people consume alcohol, and although there seems to no major black market where gangs are getting involved, there has been a drastic increase in the number of problems associated with drinking (such as drinking and driving and fights).

I feel you would merely be substituting one problem for another. Which is worse?

 

[Brainonska511]

I feel like legalizing and regulating soft narcotics (pot) would be fine, but hard drugs like crystal meth and crack need to remain illegal. They're too destructive and addictive for people to be productive members of society.

People always claim that pot is the gateway drug, but I wonder if that's more because you have to go to a dealer to get some; when you go, I could see them pushing you to get other stuff instead (cocaine, heroin, etc...). Legalizing pot would allow people to get their high without the pressure to go and accept harder drugs from their illegal supplier.

Overall though, I'm speculating a lot with the latter statement. I don't know enough about the intricacies of this topic to make a fully informed decision.

I'd imagine that decriminalization would also help a lot - make it a fine and mandatory treatment for possession of hard drugs instead of jail time.

 

[bsobel]

What are the black markets like for alcohol and cigarettes?

Look at the history of prohibition in the US, it followed the same track.

Obviously if the drugs were made legal, there would be a big spike in usage, deaths, violent behaviour, etc, but it should theoretically drop back down to a visible baseline.

Actually, not 'obviously', in fact in most cases deaths and violent behavior would drop. And, the question of 'big spike in usage' is also suspect, those that want drugs dont really have an issue getting them today.

What overall effect would legal narcotics have?

Same as the repeal of prohibition had.

I feel you would merely be substituting one problem for another. Which is worse?

No your substituting government prohibition of a persons personal choices with government control of it.

 

[Farang]

Hard to say. I think usage would certainly increase, but the question is if we aren't causing this violent black market by fighting against alcohol usage then haven't we already made the choice the the cost is not worth preventing the increased abuse?

 

[slowrak]

Yes, it would lower the entry barrier for entrepreneurs and competition would ensure the best product. I don't like it when you say the government should regulate drugs. Its already doing that. There is either regulation, which means individuals get to have rights that others don't, or freedom. I'd say lack of freedom is worse personally.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: BigToque
In Vancouver the police have finally admitted they're in the middle of a gang war and it's being fueled by cocaine. 12 people dead since January. Quite frankly, I don't care if they're offing themselves, but it puts a lot of innocent people at risk as well.

I often hear that if the government were to legalize and regulate the sale of [insert currently illegal drug here], it would eliminate the black market and therefore also eliminate the violent actions of those competing for market share.

What are the black markets like for alcohol and cigarettes?

There are limited black markets for these items, primarily purchase of tobacco and alcohol for underage consumers, and some tobacco smuggling for tax evasion. They are both inherently low profit margin and thereby non-violent.

Obviously if the drugs were made legal, there would be a big spike in usage, deaths, violent behaviour, etc, but it should theoretically drop back down to a visible baseline.

There is no reason to assume a large spike in usage, and no reason that such an increase, if it did occur, would necessarily lead to any significant increase in violence or deaths. A regulated market in pharmaceutical intoxicants could lead to a more consistent quality of drugs, with a concomitant decrease in accidental deaths.

Do you think this baseline would include a greater percentage of the population?

Education is the key to reduction in drug abuse, not prohibition. Give people honest information rather than the current flow of propaganda intended to sustain the anti-drug bureaucracy, and you can see the rate of abuse of harmful drugs decline.

What overall effect would legal narcotics have?

Reduction of violent crime and decline in prison population would be the most immediate results.

Quite a few people consume alcohol, and although there seems to no major black market where gangs are getting involved, there has been a drastic increase in the number of problems associated with drinking (such as drinking and driving and fights).

I have not observed any such increase in problems related to alcohol consumption. If anything, DUI rates are declining. Also, people don't need to drink to fight. Admittedly, they do sometimes need less reason to fight if they are drunk. You may consider that stoners are, if anything, less likely to start fights than are drunks.

I feel you would merely be substituting one problem for another. Which is worse?

The problems created by drug prohibition far outweigh the dangers of the drugs themselves.

Bottom line: Human Nature. People will find a way to obtain intoxicants regardless of the law. Make those intoxicants illegal, and you make those people criminals. You also create a huge profit margin that leads to additional criminal activity. No one shoots up a neighborhood in disputes over $25 ounces of pure cocaine. No one knocks over liquor stores to support a $1/day heroin habit.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: slowrak
Yes, it would lower the entry barrier for entrepreneurs and competition would ensure the best product. I don't like it when you say the government should regulate drugs. Its already doing that. There is either regulation, which means individuals get to have rights that others don't, or freedom. I'd say lack of freedom is worse personally.

okay...so what exactly did you say that made any sense at all?

 

[Dragula22]

Anybody pick up the new issue of the economist? Cover story: How to stop the drug wars - Prohibition has failed; legalization is the least bad solution

http://www.economist.com/opini...3&source=hptextfeature

 

[ScottMac]

Sure. It'd be about as effective as re-legalizing alcohol was in getting rid of the (Italian) mob.

(i.e., it wouldn't make a bit of difference - the gang's don't exist to move drugs, it's just one of many revenue streams)

 

[Dragula22]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
Sure. It'd be about as effective as re-legalizing alcohol was in getting rid of the (Italian) mob.

(i.e., it wouldn't make a bit of difference - the gang's don't exist to move drugs, it's just one of many revenue streams)

What revenue stream is left over if you take away all drug money?

 

[sandorski]

Regulation would ensure Quality and the Safety(as much as can be attained)of Drugs. That alone could cut down on OD's and other Ill Effects. Pot certainly should be treated as Alcohol is, possibly Cocaine, Heroine, and Opium, but obviously those Drugs carry a lot of risk and so much baggage that most wouldn't support Legalization. I still think the way they are treated now just won't work, ever, it's best just to Legalize, deal with the short-term negative effects, and through Education, just like Tobacco, use will drop to levels that won't be too bad for Society to deal with.

Meth and some other Drugs are different, but I think you still have to take Use out of the Legal realm and put it into the Medical realm where Treatment becomes the Norm and not Punishment.

The biggest problem we have in this "War" is not so much the Drugs as it is the Self-Righteous Puritan BS that guides our efforts. "Addiction" is "Bad" or "Weakness" to be condemned, rather than looking at the practical problems/consequences of Addiction and dealing with them in a Rational manner.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Dragula22

Originally posted by: ScottMac
Sure. It'd be about as effective as re-legalizing alcohol was in getting rid of the (Italian) mob.

(i.e., it wouldn't make a bit of difference - the gang's don't exist to move drugs, it's just one of many revenue streams)

What revenue stream is left over if you take away all drug money?

There are some and Organized Crime won't just disappear, but their Revenue will be a fraction and their numbers will dwindle significantly.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Dragula22

Originally posted by: ScottMac
Sure. It'd be about as effective as re-legalizing alcohol was in getting rid of the (Italian) mob.

(i.e., it wouldn't make a bit of difference - the gang's don't exist to move drugs, it's just one of many revenue streams)

What revenue stream is left over if you take away all drug money?

Extortion, prostitution, loan shark, gambling. I have no idea how much revenue they generate compared to drugs - just throwing them out there.

 

[Balt]

It might solve some problems, but it wouldn't solve all of them. I don't think drug dealers are going to suddenly decide that since they've been pushed out of the drug market they're going to go get a McJob. More than likely they are going to try to move on to some other illegal trade. I wouldn't be surprised if there was at least a temporary spike in violent crimes.

As for the long term? No idea.

 

[Lemon law]

Its a somewhat good question, it makes little sense to try to make illegal, popular recreational drugs like Marijuana, Alcohol, and we are almost doing the same with Tobacco, if these can't be obtained legally, it invites various criminals to provide it through black markets. Our American experience in outlawing alcohol proved to be a disaster and promoted the growth of organized crime. And worse yet, when the government makes totally false arguments about the danger of Marijuana, it discredits its own more real arguments about the legitimate warning about the real dangers of addictive drugs in the opiate class.

But I have to wonder if the American experience can really be applied to Mexico? At least the growth of the American mafia in the 1930's has finally been checked by aggressive FBI operations, and Mafia influence in the USA has been on the wane for years.

The new threat is Russian, Chinese, and Hispanic gangs that make the Sicilian type of Mafia look like choir boys in comparison. And not only are they fighting among themselves, starving them of drug money simply spurs those totally immoral groups into lucrative sidelines like kidnapping and extortion, and does not stop at intimidating even the top public officials.

Its going to be a much tougher nut to crack. And half way measures are unlikely to work against these stop at nothing types. The tactics we could have used 30 years ago could have stopped them then, but this is now, and what was a bouncing baby monster then, has matured into multiheaded hydra now, cut one head off and another two appear.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Balt
It might solve some problems, but it wouldn't solve all of them. I don't think drug dealers are going to suddenly decide that since they've been pushed out of the drug market they're going to go get a McJob. More than likely they are going to try to move on to some other illegal trade. I wouldn't be surprised if there was at least a temporary spike in violent crimes.

As for the long term? No idea.

I suspect tthat after a Legalization Gang Violence would indeed erupt as all the Gangs will try to dominate what's left of the Underground Economy. That will eventually settle down, probably within a few months.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
I feel like legalizing and regulating soft narcotics (pot) would be fine, but hard drugs like crystal meth and crack need to remain illegal. They're too destructive and addictive for people to be productive members of society.

People always claim that pot is the gateway drug, but I wonder if that's more because you have to go to a dealer to get some; when you go, I could see them pushing you to get other stuff instead (cocaine, heroin, etc...). Legalizing pot would allow people to get their high without the pressure to go and accept harder drugs from their illegal supplier.

Overall though, I'm speculating a lot with the latter statement. I don't know enough about the intricacies of this topic to make a fully informed decision.

I'd imagine that decriminalization would also help a lot - make it a fine and mandatory treatment for possession of hard drugs instead of jail time.

Legalize them all (with strict rules against advertising them, since that normalizes them and would encourage rate of adoption) and subsidize the hard drugs so that anyone who wants them gets them nearly free. No crime then since people don't have to come up with the cash, and subsidies would be short-lived since I think most users would OD when they have such an available supply.

Callous yes but it means those people pay the consequence for their poor choices instead of society taking the crime, welfare and health hit.

Allow employers to continue screening for drugs and making no-hire decisions based on the results. Again, let people take the consequences for their own actions; if employers don't want to hire people who are killing brain cells, are at higher risk for coming to work high/hung over, that is their right.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
Sure. It'd be about as effective as re-legalizing alcohol was in getting rid of the (Italian) mob.

(i.e., it wouldn't make a bit of difference - the gang's don't exist to move drugs, it's just one of many revenue streams)

The Italian mob still exists?


It's ridiculous both to argue and expect that ending the drug prohibition would end ALL gang-related crime. What it would do is reduce such crime and make it more manageable, which of course, is all a sane person should be hoping for anyway.

edit: except in a world with no laws, there will NEVER be a world with no crime. Let's tune the idealism down to a dull roar, eh...

edit2: legalization, regulation, and subsidization won't lead to more OD's of hard drugs. Probably less, in fact, as most OD's are caused by the unknown purity standards of the black market. IOW, users in a black market expect to get impure product and adjust their dosage accordingly. An overdose usually occurs in those rare times when they get actually pure product but mistake it for the usual impure product. Such an environment wouldn't exist in a regulated market, so there would likely be less OD's, not more.

 

[wwswimming]

sort of. for example, what happened in the case of alcohol.

moonshiners were replaced by the ATF.

meanwhile, a look at the future
http://www.alternet.org/drugre...imate_pot/?page=entire

using gas chromatography to analyze medical marijuana.

Afghui ?

Gesundheit !

 

[StageLeft]

I would like some other country to try it. I am firmly convinced that legalization of hard drugs (I don't think they can effectively be regulated and legalized) is a terrible idea. I believe people are simply ignorant of their effects to think otherwise. Alcohol is a deleterious drug but for most people it is an accepted part of their life and they do ok. Cocaine and other hard drugs affect users in ways that make them obsess over it like the worst booze use and for most people who get into it it will destroy their life unless they get out in time.

Giving up and regulating is not a solution, it's just that, giving up.

 

[GRIFFIN1]

All drugs should be as legal as alcohol. I should be able to walk into Walgreens and buy a kilo of coke if that's what I want to do.

I also think there should be drug camps where the government will provide junkies with all the drugs they can want free of charge, but if they want to leave the camp, then they are going to have to go through detox and counseling. This would keep the hardcore junkies off the streets.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I would like some other country to try it. I am firmly convinced that legalization of hard drugs (I don't think they can effectively be regulated and legalized) is a terrible idea. I believe people are simply ignorant of their effects to think otherwise. Alcohol is a deleterious drug but for most people it is an accepted part of their life and they do ok. Cocaine and other hard drugs affect users in ways that make them obsess over it like the worst booze use and for most people who get into it it will destroy their life unless they get out in time.

Giving up and regulating is not a solution, it's just that, giving up.

So you feel you're winning the drug war?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I would like some other country to try it. I am firmly convinced that legalization of hard drugs (I don't think they can effectively be regulated and legalized) is a terrible idea. I believe people are simply ignorant of their effects to think otherwise. Alcohol is a deleterious drug but for most people it is an accepted part of their life and they do ok. Cocaine and other hard drugs affect users in ways that make them obsess over it like the worst booze use and for most people who get into it it will destroy their life unless they get out in time.

Giving up and regulating is not a solution, it's just that, giving up.

So you feel you're winning the drug war?

Like the war on terror, it is an impossible war to win, or on bad breath, but it must be fought nonetheless.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Regulation would ensure Quality and the Safety(as much as can be attained)of Drugs. That alone could cut down on OD's and other Ill Effects. Pot certainly should be treated as Alcohol is, possibly Cocaine, Heroine, and Opium, but obviously those Drugs carry a lot of risk and so much baggage that most wouldn't support Legalization. I still think the way they are treated now just won't work, ever, it's best just to Legalize, deal with the short-term negative effects, and through Education, just like Tobacco, use will drop to levels that won't be too bad for Society to deal with.

Meth and some other Drugs are different, but I think you still have to take Use out of the Legal realm and put it into the Medical realm where Treatment becomes the Norm and not Punishment.

The biggest problem we have in this "War" is not so much the Drugs as it is the Self-Righteous Puritan BS that guides our efforts. "Addiction" is "Bad" or "Weakness" to be condemned, rather than looking at the practical problems/consequences of Addiction and dealing with them in a Rational manner.

Agreed. Keep in mind that the reason many dangerous street drugs such as crystal meth exist today is because of a lack of regulation - producers use whatever cutting substances they want, and they lace some drugs with other drugs. Regular methamphetamines have proper medical uses and are far less destructive.

Legalize all drugs, regulate the content and quality, sell them to adults only, and use the profits to fund addiction counseling/detox.

Illegal drug abuse is actually a very minor problem compared to legal drug abuse, which is incredibly widespread and destructive. IIRC, only 3% and 1% of the Canadian population respectively use cocaine and heroin on a regular basis. Compare this with 25% who smoke tobacco, and an even greater percentage who drink alcohol.

Even if there were a small spike in usage for "hard" drugs post-legalization, the number of people using these drugs is so low that the overall cost to society is low. We incur far greater costs from abuse of legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs).

I believe the major stumbling block, apart from our traditional Puritan attitudes, is that there are too many powerful groups with vested interests in keeping the War on Drugs alive (for example, politicians, DEA, police forces, CIA).

 

[Zebo]

Two ways to solve this issue and both are extreme.

1. Be Saudi like and kill users and dealers alike.

2. Remove huge profit motive by legalizing it.