Marijuana

[MystifyingVol]

It wasn't so long ago that I had the same line of thinking, however, the more I thought about this issue, the more my thinking turned to full legalization. It's really one of personal responsibility vs. a nanny state and the drug war is one tool being used to terrorize citizens. If you give an inch (e.g. making some drugs legal and leaving some drugs illegal), then the potential for abuse is still there.

The article cited seems to suggest that drug laws are only designed to prevent harms on the user, and that the only corresponding problem that flows from drug use is the black market. I think this is an oversimplification of the issue. Let me preface my argument by saying that I have no problem with the legalization of certain drugs – such as marijuana – but I am still unsure about more dangerous substances.

In 2004, 54.1% of the Federal prison population was drug related. I couldn't find state information, I'm sure the percentages are similar. Since 80's, when the War on Drugs went into effect, the percentage has increased drastically year over year:

In 2001 dollars, that 54.1% (on the Federal level only) cost us $1,762,285,944 to house. This doesn't included enforcement or judicial costs. I guarantee that legalization would raise more than that in taxes.

First, even if legalization of all drugs was successful in eliminating the black market for drugs, it is a stretch to make the assumption that this reduction would not be shifted – at least in part - to other illegal activities. Sure, if after legalization, drug dealers filled their time helping old ladies across the street and went out and got real jobs, the crime rate would certainly go down. But this result assumes that the reason drug dealers sell black market goods is because their chosen profession has been made illegal by the government, not that they choose this profession specifically because it involves goods on the black market. A strong argument exists, however, that drug dealers choose to engage in the black market because – for lack of a better phrase – where there is risk there is reward. They seek fast money and, with little to lose by getting caught, they view the benefit as exceeding the risk of imprisonment. If this scenario were true, drug dealers will simply switch to another high-risk high-reward activity such as armed robbery or running prostitution rings, and the legalization of drugs will simply shift many current drug dealers’ actions to different illegal activities.

Straw man argument, people committing other crimes because drugs are now legal have no bearing on the fact that legalization would reduce the black market and criminal activity due to that black market. Furthermore, who is to say that the corner dealer now won’t get a job as a legitimate dealer once drugs become legal? Many dealers deal because that is their only job opportunity to make a living due to their socioeconomic circumstances.

Second, I agree that the only reason for regulating the use of recreational drugs would be harm, or threats of harm, caused by drug use. If drug use only harmed the user, then its regulation would have little justification. However, unlike mild drugs such as marijuana, in harming oneself many drugs (such as heroin, crack, methamphetamines, etc.) may incidentally have effects for others. For this reason, I believe that the idea that illegal drugs cause only self-harm is a myth. For example, the use of these drugs by a pregnant mother exposes the unborn child to toxic and permanently damaging substances. In fact, newborns of parents who use certain addictive substances (such as heroin or crack) often begin having withdrawals within minutes of birth. Children of parents who use serious drugs are harmed because they are subjected to the abuse of their drug-addicted parents. Drug use may also harm strangers who are on the receiving end of aggressive acts to which the impaired and overly aggressive drug users are prone. However, I don’t have any information on the prevalence of these drug-related crimes or whether all such harms can be directly attributed to the existence of the black market.

This is a question of personal responsibility, it is not my job nor should it be a financial burden on society to enforce such legislation because someone made a bad decision. I would MUCH rather spend our tax money on rehabilitation services vs. enforcement activities. In my mind, if we are going to spend the money, rehabilitation is a more humane path and won’t be abused in the same manner as enforcement activities.

In regards to a mother using drugs and harming an unborn child, states could pass laws against unborn child endangerment, I think this would be a better way to handle. Furthermore, monies saved on enforcement could be used in education.

If someone is on the receiving end of an aggressive acting, depending on what it is, there are laws on the books to charge these people. Just because your high would not get you out of a assault and battery charge.

Moreover, drug use harms family members by depriving them of the income of their addicted partners and parents. While it may be argued that legalization of all drugs would reduce this artificially inflated price that results from the black market, if drugs were taxed to raise revenue this may simply recreate the high-price conditions of the illegal black market. Conversely, if taxes were kept low to avoid this, then the price of drugs would be determined largely by their cost of production: a month’s supply of heroin might cost the same as a month’s supply of coffee or perhaps even of sugar. In this case, the basic principles of supply and demand suggest that consumption of these drugs which may very well be harmful to third persons will skyrocket.

There are two items to address in this paragraph. The first part, where family members might be harmed by depriving them of income, this is true of alcohol as well, it boils down to, do you want personal responsibility or do you want a nanny state.

I think your argument about increase consumption is invalid. The National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine conducted a study in 1999 where they determined that ""In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use." Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 102. The statistics from a country where they did do partial legalization follows:

If you think usage of “hard drugs” is going to increase because of legalization, you would have to agree that marijuana usage would be increasing at a similar rate. It just isn’t true in a society (Netherlands) that has legal marijuana usage for recreational purposes.

For these drugs that impose harms on third parties, I believe that the government has at least some justification to continue laws against them. To the extent these drugs can be shown to have some beneficial health effects, I believe they should be allowed but limited in much the same way as current prescription medications. However, there is, as far as I know, no claim that any currently illegal drug other than marijuana has any health benefit for ordinary users.

Any harm that befalls a third party should be dealt with by applying appropriate laws (i.e. murder, assault and battery, robbery)

As I am writing this, however, I find myself in a contradictory stance because many of my arguments for the continued laws against some illegal drugs would also be applicable to alcohol. I believe my argument rests, in part, on simply the extent of the harm that drugs such as meth, crack, and heroin have on their users compared to more mild drugs such as marijuana and alcohol.

Welcome, I too came to this conclusion and just expanded upon it.

I know what we are doing NOW isn't working, it's time to try something different. Generations ago, they realized that Prohibition was a bad idea, it's NO different now, it is just different substances.

I'd also like to state, I don't use and would not use if legal. However, because I choose not to use does not mean I have the right to impose this decision for myself on someone else.

 

[paul1454]

Thanks for the response. Without repeating myself too much, I want to make clear that I believe the differing treatment between alcohol and many currently illegal drugs have very little justification. I am completely on board with a policy of liberalization, however, I am still undecided as to the extent of that liberalization. Specifically, I still believe justification is found in the prohibition of drugs that significantly increase the risk and create harms to third parties.

It wasn't so long ago that I had the same line of thinking, however, the more I thought about this issue, the more my thinking turned to full legalization. It's really one of personal responsibility vs. a nanny state and the drug war is one tool being used to terrorize citizens. If you give an inch (e.g. making some drugs legal and leaving some drugs illegal), then the potential for abuse is still there.



In 2004, 54.1% of the Federal prison population was drug related. I couldn't find state information, I'm sure the percentages are similar. Since 80's, when the War on Drugs went into effect, the percentage has increased drastically year over year:

In 2001 dollars, that 54.1% (on the Federal level only) cost us $1,762,285,944 to house. This doesn't included enforcement or judicial costs. I guarantee that legalization would raise more than that in taxes.

You don't have to tell me the black market is huge. I never argued otherwise.

Straw man argument, people committing other crimes because drugs are now legal have no bearing on the fact that legalization would reduce the black market and criminal activity due to that black market. Furthermore, who is to say that the corner dealer now won’t get a job as a legitimate dealer once drugs become legal? Many dealers deal because that is their only job opportunity to make a living due to their socioeconomic circumstances.


Your retort simply restates the counter-assumption, that drug dealers are not attracted to the money inherent in illegal activities, rather that their destined occupation has simply been chastised by the federal government. I just don't see how you can reach that conclusion. Surely, you agree that people that deal drugs are not devoid of occupational skills. They could work numerous low-level occupations at any given time. The reason many of them are attracted to drug dealing is because it brings much more money than any legal job ever could. Legalizing drugs does not get rid of other illegal forms of making a living. There will still be many illegal activities that allow those with few occupational skills to make more money than they would in legal occupations. I used armed robbery and prostitution as only a few of the other illegal activities those with few socioeconomic incentives to refrain from breaking the law will engage in to make money.

On the other hand, I certainly believe legalizing all drugs would eliminate this black market and any shifting to other illegal activities would not counteract this decline. However, this is neither here nor there. It is not my point at all. I was just playing devils advocate against the author of the article you cited in order to point out that certainly an elimination of drug laws would not automatically mean a reduction in crime directly proportional to the current black market. My only true argument against legalization of all drugs remains: those laws making use of drugs that create direct harm on third parties - or significantly increase the risk of that harm - have justification.

This is a question of personal responsibility, it is not my job nor should it be a financial burden on society to enforce such legislation because someone made a bad decision. I would MUCH rather spend our tax money on rehabilitation services vs. enforcement activities. In my mind, if we are going to spend the money, rehabilitation is a more humane path and won’t be abused in the same manner as enforcement activities.

Like I said before, if drug use was a victimless crime, I could find no justification for current laws against it. I just don't see how third party harms can be brushed off as issues of personal responsibility when they directly affect parties outside of the personal decision. For example, studies have shown that 29% of all violent offenders in state prisons were under the influence of illegal drugs when committing the violent offense. 26% of murders, 39% of armed robberies, 24% of assaults, 38% of burglaries, and 39% of motor vehicle thefts were committed while the perpetrator was under the influence of illegal drugs. BJS, Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997. Clearly, the problem extends beyond that of personal responsibility.

In regards to a mother using drugs and harming an unborn child, states could pass laws against unborn child endangerment, I think this would be a better way to handle. Furthermore, monies saved on enforcement could be used in education.

If someone is on the receiving end of an aggressive acting, depending on what it is, there are laws on the books to charge these people. Just because your high would not get you out of a assault and battery charge.

Right, but for those substances that may significantly increase the risk of these crimes, I can see a justification for seeking to eliminate the increased risk by enacting laws against the substances that increase that risk.

There are two items to address in this paragraph. The first part, where family members might be harmed by depriving them of income, this is true of alcohol as well, it boils down to, do you want personal responsibility or do you want a nanny state.

I think your argument about increase consumption is invalid. The National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine conducted a study in 1999 where they determined that ""In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use." Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 102. The statistics from a country where they did do partial legalization follows:

Again, my basis does not rely on this assertion either. However, I would like to point out that the study you cited did not compare changing prices in illicit substances with demand. The study you cited only addresses changes in drug use before and after legalization, without attempting to factor in equal, increased, or decreased prices after legalization. In fact, the same report even points out that, "There was a greater increase from 1975 to 1978 in the proportion of ER patients who had used marijuana in states that had decriminalized marijuana in 1975-1976 than in states that had not decriminalized it (Table 3.6)."

If you think usage of “hard drugs” is going to increase because of legalization, you would have to agree that marijuana usage would be increasing at a similar rate. It just isn’t true in a society (Netherlands) that has legal marijuana usage for recreational purposes.

Not necessarily. I am comparing price changes and its effects on drug use. Other studies that deal directly with the elasticity of illicit drugs have found that demand does change with price. See Illicit Drugs: Price Elasticity of Demand and Supply

Any harm that befalls a third party should be dealt with by applying appropriate laws (i.e. murder, assault and battery, robbery)

Again, to the extent a drug can be shown to dramatically increase the risk of these harms, I believe its regulation is justified. Would you rather prevent a murder or punish the murderer after he kills? I must say, I find merit in this argument but also acknowledge that it may be a slippery slope into paternalism.



Welcome, I too came to this conclusion and just expanded upon it.

I know what we are doing NOW isn't working, it's time to try something different. Generations ago, they realized that Prohibition was a bad idea, it's NO different now, it is just different substances.

I'd also like to state, I don't use and would not use if legal. However, because I choose not to use does not mean I have the right to impose this decision for myself on someone else.

Thanks for the interesting debate. I am sure my responses make me appear more on the other side than I really am. I think that is because a lot of them are just me playing devils advocate. I certainly think your stance has a lot of merit and, in fact, I would say I am very close to agreeing with you in total. In fact, many of my favorite economists support your view (Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell). Unfortunately, I am not ready to jump in feet first just yet.