War on Drugs Cant Be Won, According to Global Leaders

[JoeRedskin]

It is and has always been a public health issue. Regulate - but don't prohibit - its production, marketing and availability. Penalize it's "misuse" (i.e. driving, working, etc. while stoned; selling to minors; increased penalties for committing crimes while on regulated drugs, etc.). If you want to safely sit in your abode, smoke a billion joints, and ruin your life, fine - so long as your stupidity doesn't endanger me or mine.

Problem, of course, is two fold:

First, regardless of how well regulated, drugs will always have a large blackmarket b/c regulation is costly and adds to the cost of the product (who is going to know if I got my pot from a licensed seller or my neighbor growing plants illegally downstairs? - If I do so, am I fined? Do I go to jail? etc.). Also, sort a subsidiary of this, will all narcotics be legal? Arguably, some drugs may simply be unsafe regardless of regulation - Can I buy meth? PCP? While not "Reefer Madness", users of these drugs may not be able to effectively insulate their "altered reality" from the rest of us.

Second, and the larger problem I think, is that drug use has public health implications beyond it's immediate use. While the public harm is not as obvious, addiction is a costly drain. Readily accessible narcotics increase the likelihood of additiction and a resultant increased cost for both treatment of the addiction and for medical "injuries" resulting from the addiction. (Yes, I know alchohol and tobacco already create this and they are legal. Just pointing out we would be creating more such risks/costs).

While "decriminalization" always seems like a panacea, it is not the end all and be all. New and different costs will occur, some forseeable, some not.

With that said, and again, you want to smoke some pot in your house? Knock your bad self out.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

It is and has always been a public health issue. Regulate - but don't prohibit - its production, marketing and availability. Penalize it's "misuse" (i.e. driving, working, etc. while stoned; selling to minors; increased penalties for committing crimes while on regulated drugs, etc.). If you want to safely sit in your abode, smoke a billion joints, and ruin your life, fine - so long as your stupidity doesn't endanger me or mine.

Problem, of course, is two fold:

First, regardless of how well regulated, drugs will always have a large blackmarket b/c regulation is costly and adds to the cost of the product (who is going to know if I got my pot from a licensed seller or my neighbor growing plants illegally downstairs? - If I do so, am I fined? Do I go to jail? etc.). Also, sort a subsidiary of this, will all narcotics be legal? Arguably, some drugs may simply be unsafe regardless of regulation - Can I buy meth? PCP? While not "Reefer Madness", users of these drugs may not be able to effectively insulate their "altered reality" from the rest of us.

Second, and the larger problem I think, is that drug use has public health implications beyond it's immediate use. While the public harm is not as obvious, addiction is a costly drain. Readily accessible narcotics increase the likelihood of additiction and a resultant increased cost for both treatment of the addiction and for medical "injuries" resulting from the addiction. (Yes, I know alchohol and tobacco already create this and they are legal. Just pointing out we would be creating more such risks/costs).

While "decriminalization" always seems like a panacea, it is not the end all and be all. New and different costs will occur, some forseeable, some not.

With that said, and again, you want to smoke some pot in your house? Knock your bad self out.

1. Why are drugs on the black-market inherently expensive? Even buying prescription drugs costs a pretty penny.
2. Would you rather buy alcohol and cigarettes from your neighbor downstairs or some guy on a corner or state liquor store and grocery stores?
3. Black-market drug producers have costs beyond the cost of the drugs themselves. How much less could these cost be compared to Phillip Morris and Pfizer?
4. Will making drugs legal increase consumption? How would legalization compare to current state of affairs?
5. Are soft drugs really a gateway to hard drugs?
6. What can we learn from are certain EU countries like the Netherlands and Spain and their drug policies?
7. Have you seen "Reefer Madness?"

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

1. Why are drugs on the black-market inherently expensive? Even buying prescription drugs costs a pretty penny.

I believe prescription drugs are more costly then legally purchased prescription drugs b/c they have limited production, high demand and incur black market costs for eluding regulation. IMO, these are not factors relevant to a continuing black market for illegal drugs as there is already a large unregulated industry producing such drugs (which would probably not survive in a heavily regulated market arena), demand for black market drugs would decrease as the demand for legal drugs increased, and the cost to elude regulation is already built into the current price of illegal drugs. Do you believe, if pot were legalized, that it's black market costs would go up? I strongly doubt it. Moonshine is cheaper than a shot of Jack. Why pay more and risk criminal penalties when I can probably get a better product with fewer legal and/or health risks from a regulated vendor?

Originally Posted by saden1

2. Would you rather buy alcohol and cigarettes from your neighbor downstairs or some guy on a corner or state liquor store and grocery stores?

Depends on the neighbor - I got this one guy up the street who has some kick a** stuff. But I agree, quality control is a key benefit in regulated drugs.

Originally Posted by saden1

3. Black-market drug producers have costs beyond the cost of the drugs themselves. How much less could these cost be compared to Phillip Morris and Pfizer?

Yes & No. The actual production cost of most drugs is minimal compared to the selling price. Drug companies, however, routinely include costs for R&D and development which is extensive. IMO, the cost to a Pfizer of getting currently illegal drugs approved for public consumption would be probably be pretty high. I would imagine, because of the inherent risks presented by such drugs, that it would be higher than the average (maybe not, but still it is an expensive proposition, a study in 2003 put a drug's To Market Cost at over $802 Million: http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/econ/dimasi2003.pdf). And that's not including final marketing costs, etc. to Pfizer. I suppose, that b/c drug companies inflate their price to cover past R&D and To Market Approval costs, they could start selling the drugs at loss-leader situation to drive out the black markets by taking advantage of the benefits of mass production and initially charging cost of production only.

Not having been an illegal drug seller, not sure what costs they would have beyond the cost of manufacture and a .45 caliber.

Originally Posted by saden1

4. Will making drugs legal increase consumption? How would legalization compare to current state of affairs?

Legitimate question but also begs the question - legalization of what? Coke? Meth? Pot only? I think, as to pot, most countries are seeing that consumption is not increased. How would it compare to the current state of affairs? Just not sure - I imagine that it would immediately (and drastically) lower the amount on enforcement. Likewise, lot less people with criminal records walking around. For the long term indirect public health costs, I am just not sure it ends up a plus or minus. As I said, the immediate governmental costs would be different (regulatory agencies v. law enforcement) and, likewise, I think the long term public health costs would be different than we face by criminalizing drugs. Not sure how, but narcotics are still generally toxins whether legal or illegal.

Ultimately, I think, long term, the overall costs for legalizing pot would be less but not as drastically so as some would believe.

Originally Posted by saden1

5. Are soft drugs really a gateway to hard drugs?

Don't know. I am sure there is legitimate research to demonstrate both sides of the coin on that issue. My general understanding and belief is that, generally, they are not but may be so for some people.

Originally Posted by saden1

6. What can we learn from are certain EU countries like the Netherlands and Spain and their drug policies?

6. Probably a whole hell of a lot. Again, the economics of scale (small, homogenous countries v. US) may make a difference. Maybe not, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Originally Posted by saden1

7. Have you seen "Reefer Madness?"

7. Yes, I have seen Reefer Madness both sober and stoned (many many many years ago). Can't access the clip at work but it is an eff'ing hilarious movie. I used the reference to illustrate that, while I am not suggesting mass destruction will automatically ensue from legalizing certain drugs, there certain drugs that are truly dangerous to both the user and the public if legalized for unsurpervised use.

Really, as to pot, I think legalization and regulation are the way to go. As to the harder drugs, not sure. Lots of variables out there, and I am unconvinced that, as to the more powerful narcotics, regulation ultimately relieves the indirect long term public health costs any better than law enforcement currently does.