Pot Moss

[SonomaCat]

And just to insert some anecdotal references ... I have seen a lot of people do various drugs at parties (sorry, no pictures or toxicology reports available at this time ) ... all of them only after drinking alcohol. Simply due to its prevalence in our culture, I would say that alcohol is the gateway drug for most of the stupid things that we collectively do (unfortunately).

[Ponycat]

This is by no means an example that proves anything but in the last two weeks I have had two separate individuals tell me they started using Meth because it got out of there system faster that THC, which meant they would be more likely to pass a UA. Goes a long way in supporting what BAC said about deeper emotional issues causing there use.

As far as alcohol being a gateway drug, all I can tell you is what I witness everyday. Alcoholics are just that, and very few have any interest in other drugs and in fact get very upset and "grandiose" about being classified with other addicts.

As far as legalizing drugs I'm curious to hear the logic behind that. First off most property crimes (I would guess over 80%) are somehow drug related, usually trying to get money for drugs. If drugs were legal they would be far more expensive than they are now i.e.. taxes. Wouldn't this mean that more property crimes would result due to more money being needed to get the drugs. Secondly, legalizing drugs would basically make it OK to neglect your children. There is a reason why DFS deals mostly with children of drug addicts and it isn't to create models of good parenting. Drugs use is in no way shape or form a victimless crime. This could also be said about alcohol I suppose but to a much much lesser extent.

[Grizlaw]

If drugs were legal they would be far more expensive than they are now i.e.. taxes.

Strictly from an economic standpoint, this is probably false, actually. Part of why drugs are as expensive as they are now is *because* they are illegal, and there is thus no open market on which they are sold. Drug dealers are taking on a risk (i.e. prison) that they would not face if drugs were legal, and they expect to be compensated for that risk. Because drugs cannot be freely sold, drug dealers can charge basically whatever they want for their products, and addicts will pay whatever they have to.

If drugs were legal, they would be freely sold on a market just like other products, and the normal rules of market economics would drive the prices to a market equilibrium. Yes, they would be taxed, and any applicable taxes would be a cost of the product, but overall the market price would probably be far cheaper than it is now.

[SonomaCat]

I'm not arguing in favor of legalizing all drugs -- I think stuff like heroin and crack and meth actually are so dangerous that very few people could use them in a way that could be called "responsibly." So I think they are severe enough so that they can be kept off-limits. Interestingly, some of the links that I posted speak of studies where the legalization of pot in other countries actually led to a decrease in the use of hard drugs in those countries. They suggest that when given a choice, many drug users will opt for pot as opposed to the more dangerous drugs. So, in theory, the legalization of pot could actually lead to a decrease in the use of meth and the other nasty drugs in this country, and people would factor in the legality and availability of pot and go for the lesser evil.

I am assuming that most drug-related crimes (theft, etc.) are mostly the result of the hard drugs I listed above as opposed to the softer drugs such as pot. At least, the stereotype that pops into my mind for pot is a guy lying on a couch and craving a burrito after a few hits as opposed to stealing batteries out of cars (shout out to Trainspotting for that drug-related mental image) to fund his next joint.

Legalizing drugs should, I would guess, lower the prices, as enforcing drug laws lowers supply and jacks up the prices (thus giving it high enough margins to entice people to kill each other over the cash in the drug trade). In a legalized system, farmers would grow it (and we all know that whatever farmers grow will have low prices on the market) and we would tax it similar to booze. It would just legitimize the system and pull tax revenue from it (which could go back into treatment or enforcement). This legitimate system would remove the drug dealers from the process, and would also create a legal and distribution distinction between minors and adults (as drug dealers don't ask for ID to sell to them). Adults could still buy it and give it to kids, just like alcohol, of course, but it should be at least a step up from the ineffective prohibition policy currently in place. If there's a demand for it, people will provide it. Making it illegal just artificially makes it more expensive.

As for the impacts on families, etc., I agree that drug abuse is a real concern in that regard. Again, though, I would say somebody who uses pot is in the exact same boat as an alcoholic (and it's funny that you mention the superiority complex some alcoholics have -- I've seen that too -- it's an interesting bit of sub-sub-culture pride). However we deal with people who abuse alcohol would be the way we would deal with people who abuse soft drugs. It's certainly not a good thing that such people exist, but one doesn't appear to be any better or worse than the other in my mind.

[Grizlaw]

(and it's funny that you mention the superiority complex some alcoholics have -- I've seen that too -- it's an interesting bit of sub-sub-culture pride).

I think all addicts do this to an extent, don't they? Alcoholics think they're morally superior to potheads, and potheads think they're morally superior to cocaine addicts, who think they're superior to crack and heroin addicts. People addicted to prescription painkillers think their addiction is more innocent than an addiction to an illegal drug, and etc. And of course, everyone who frequents the club circuit here in NY (and probably SF too, yes BAC?) will tell you that Ecstacy isn't a "real" drug.

The bottom line is, if you abuse *any* drug, you can ruin your life, whether your drug of choice is legal or not. Some drugs can be used recreationally without necessarily being detrimental (alcohol, probably marijuana -- the jury's still out on ecstacy), and I do agree with BAC that some are probably dangerous enough that any use is too high risk to be tolerated (crack, heroin, PCP).

[SonomaCat]

Yep, there's a bit of E floating around here, too.

As an aside -- this is a fun conversation. We're challenging each other's ideas, forcing ourselves to consider another point of view, and ultimately trying to defend our own views (or, as is often the case, pulling in towards the middle in the end). In the process we are probably all doing a little reading on the side (at least, I am since I'm not an expert in this field by any stretch) to figure out if what we are trying to say is making any sense at all. I learn so much from this kind of exchange, so thanks guys!

[Ponycat]

As far as the prices of drugs go I have to respectfully disagree with both Girzlaw and BAC on what would happen if drugs were legalized. As it stands right now marijuana is not that expensive, and IMO if it became legal the government would take it over, tax the bejesus out of it and regulate the heck out of it and the prices would go through the roof. (this is the only way you could convince people to legalize it) Just like cigarettes.
(Any one know what happened to prices before during and after prohibition. I don't but would be interested if anyone did.)

As for legalizing marijuana to lower other drug use; I don't know if you can consider prison a microcosm of society but the most effective way prisons have been able to curb drug use inside is to make cigarettes illegal. The cons spend all there time trying to smuggle in cigs and the drug smuggling/use has dropped dramatically.

Also I've heard just as many people state, or write about how legalized drug use has ruined European cities, as I have people praising the policy. It all depends on whose side you want to listen to.

I case you couldn't tell I'm a beleiver in the Rudy Giouliani/broken widow theory of crime control.

[SonomaCat]

I guess it comes down to what one assumes the tax rate would be on pot. The cost of the product itself would undoubtably be very low (given the vast pot-growing land and resources available across the country and the efficiency of our farming practices), but the if government taxed it extremely heavily, then I agree that it could theoretically rise above the current street price.

So the question then becomes, which is better -- that profit going into the pockets of drug dealers or into the public coffers as tax revenue and (to a lesser degree) to American farmers?

The prison analogy is interesting. I'm trying to think through whether that same theory would apply on a societal level. Probably not ... just because we do have so much freedom and convenience in our lives that we really don't expend too much of our overall available time trying to get anything -- it's all quite easily available. It's more a matter of us weighing what we want as a function of price, effectiveness and legality (the cost of going to jail and having to smuggle cigs).

[Grizlaw]

As far as the prices of drugs go I have to respectfully disagree with both Girzlaw and BAC on what would happen if drugs were legalized. As it stands right now marijuana is not that expensive, and IMO if it became legal the government would take it over, tax the bejesus out of it and regulate the heck out of it and the prices would go through the roof.

I don't know about prices of alcohol during prohibition, but again, to me, simple logic (and economics) dictates that there are costs involved with producing an illegal product that would simply not be present if the same product were produced legally.

As it is now, marijuana either has to be grown secretly, or else it has to be smuggled into the country. Both of those courses of action are expensive. Assuming it is grown in the U.S., it can only be grown in relatively small quantities (due to the need for secrecy), and has to be moved (again, secretly). At each stage of production / smuggling, there are middle-men who expect to be compensated for the fact that by simply doing their jobs, they are risking criminal prosecution. Are you telling me that you don't think the base cost of the drug would be cheaper if all of these costs were removed, and the drug could instead be grown in open fields and transported in sixteen-wheelers like any other product?

I realize the drug would be taxed, but you cannot just pretend that the dynamics of the market don't exist and then conclude that the price would "go through the roof" simply because of taxes that may or may not be enacted at the levels you are speculating.

[SonomaCat]

How did we live before Google (or other search engines)? A blurb about the impact of prohibition on liquor prices ... they increased dramatically when it became illegal:

Fisher used retail alcohol prices to demonstrate that Prohibition was working by raising the price and decreasing the quantity produced. However, his price quotations also revealed that the Iron Law of Prohibition was at work. The price of beer increased by more than 700 percent, and that of brandies increased by 433 percent, but spirit prices in creased by only 270 percent, which led to an absolute in crease in the consumption of spirits over pre-Prohibition levels.[15]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

The executive summary at the beginning makes some interesting points that are relevant to our immediate discussion as well.

[Ponycat]

True, I am speculating, but I can't imagine that it would be less than what cigarettes are taxed.

Which would probably vary from state to state so you would still have the smuggling issue.