"If drugs were legal, crime will go down"

[Xirius]

Have a look at Portugal, decriminalizing (still not legal but you get therapy instead of jail) drugs works quite well to reduce both crime and drug usage.

[New Chalcedon]

I've heard the argument that if drugs were legal, crime would drop, because the drug cartels and gangs would have no reason to exist. I Do not fully understand this for two reasons:

The first reason: Many of the people who support the legalization of drugs promotion their taxation. Would that also give the cartel a reason to exist by providing tax free drugs?

And the second reason: Certain drugs such as heroin is highly addictive. Wouldn't there be people who became addicted to these drugs and must resort to crime to get them?

Please correct me if I made ​​a mistake.

(1) Not as much of a reason. Sure, the (taxed) drugs wouldn't be cheap - but you won't be paying $500 per shot of them. Basically, the profit margin for the cartels would, at the least, decrease.

(2) Another reason given is QA assurance. Basically, if they're legalised and regulated, producers will be obliged to maintain standardised purities/strengths/etc. of the drugs. Therefore, there will be many fewer overdoses, being as overdoses are most frequently caused by a sudden jump in strength from one batch to the next, of which the end-user is unaware.

(3) Cigarettes are addictive (just ask a friend of mine) and we levy high taxes on them here in Australia - yet very few people commit crimes to purchase cigarettes. Basically, the costs of producting both hard and soft drugs are a tiny fraction of the current street price. If they were legalised with a 50% tax rate (50% of all sales income goes to taxes), prices would drop by a factor of at least 4, and there'd still be plenty of profit opportunities for legit corporations.

Consider: Afghani farmers get $125/kilo of dry opium. This kilo is taken, processed into heroin at 7:1 (Footnote "o", at the bottom), meaning that a kilo of heroin comes from a base seven kilos of dried opium resin. This kilo of heroin, in turn, sells on the streets of Los Angeles for the equivalent of $30,800. This, in turn, means that that one kilo of dry opium sells for about $4,500 at street prices in LA - a fourty-to-one markup.

The government could charge a 50% tax on opiates - let us say that the price would fall to one-quarter of today's, such that the price of (today's) $4,500 of heroin would be instead $1,125. Of that $1,125: About $200 would be the refinement and transportation costs, $100 would be direct store-sales overheads and the Afghani farmer could get a huge income boost to $200/kilo. The government gets $500 to pay into healthcare and other worthwhile things, and the firm that takes advantage of this market gets $125/kilo.

Basically, this is not a 'free lunch' - the cartels and other current (illegal) middlemen lose out - but it is about the closest you can get in economics.

I wholeheartedly support, on grounds of social liberty and economics, the legalisation, taxation and regulation of all 'soft' drugs, and - with considerably more regulation - most 'hard' drugs also.

[Lackadaisical2]

A libertarian wouldn't care if crime rates rose or fell and would rely on the moral necessity of personal rights.

[Hippostania]

All drugs cause problems, there is no way why we should legalize them. In my opinion, all drugs should be banned, including alcohol and tobacco. We really need another prohibition.

[Lackadaisical2]

All drugs cause problems, there is no way why we should legalize them. In my opinion, all drugs should be banned, including alcohol and tobacco. We really need another prohibition.

Yeah, that would solve all our problems and not at all result in my stabbing some unfortunate to get my fix...

[Soviet Haaregrad]

All drugs cause problems, there is no way why we should legalize them. In my opinion, all drugs should be banned, including alcohol and tobacco. We really need another prohibition.

Ban the addictive drug caffeine!

[Lackadaisical2]

All drugs cause problems, there is no way why we should legalize them. In my opinion, all drugs should be banned, including alcohol and tobacco. We really need another prohibition.

Ban the addictive drug caffeine!

NO, we need to tax it until people start doing desperate things for it, and then we ban it because addicts are dangerous, its the only way.

[Yaltabaoth]

I'd like to see an honest re-appraisal of the reasons for the original banning of most "drugs". Also an honest appraisal of the effectiveness of the laws, and their overall impact. And finally, an honest cost/benefit analysis.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Ban the addictive drug caffeine!

NO, we need to tax it until people start doing desperate things for it, and then we ban it because addicts are dangerous, its the only way.

You speak great wisdom. *nod*

[Nazis in Space]

I've heard the argument that if drugs were legal, crime would drop, because the drug cartels and gangs would have no reason to exist. I Do not fully understand this for two reasons:

The first reason: Many of the people who support the legalization of drugs promotion their taxation. Would that also give the cartel a reason to exist by providing tax free drugs?

Yep.

And the second reason: Certain drugs such as heroin is highly addictive. Wouldn't there be people who became addicted to these drugs and must resort to crime to get them?

Yep. Although I note that the addictiveness of heroin depends on how it's consumed - it used to be (And IIRC, still is in Britain) sold as a mere painkiller, and for decades, caused fuckall addictions (It's also comparatively non-toxic). Chiefly due to being administered orally, in pill form.

You know of many organized cigarette gangs?

Yes. It makes up a very substantial fraction of the total organised crime in Germany.

Actually yes, they do. More liberal policies regarding drugs has led to less use, not more. See: Prohibition, Portugal, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic for examples.

Counterexamples: The legality of opium and heroin (In more addicting consumption forms than swallowing a pill thereof) in the late 19th, early 20th century, when these things could be found, and were regularly consumed pretty much anywhere. While they weren't 'Folk Drugs' like alcohol or tabacco, consumption was nonetheless immense, far higher than post-ban. Pretty much the same applies to cocaine.

It's certainly possible to consume hard drugs in a 'Safe' fashion, without it becoming so much that one's life falls apart, regardless of whether it's legal or not - ridiculously difficult with heroin, but regularly manageable with meth, various designer drugs (Sooo many... jesus. Usually related), and cocaine. But it's still a lot harder to do than with, say, alcohol - where alcohol becomes a full-on addiction in maybe 10% of cases, and a life-ruining one in maybe 10% of that (There's degrees to alcoholism, different forms thereof and all), the ratios look... A lot less pleasant for harder drugs.

Designer drugs in pretty pill form are probably the safest of the bunch (If still not something I'd try myself), but even those are considerably more dangerous than alcohol. One can debate about the cutoff point where society at large, through its enforcement organ (The state) should say 'No, you can't do that, the risk of a fuckup is too high', but IMHO, the position we're at right now is a pretty acceptable one (Though personally, I'm more okay with designer drugs for clubbing than with cigarettes). If our experiences with hard drugs during the aforementioend period - late 19th, early 20th century - are anything to go by (And they are), we should not desire to legalise them.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Designer drugs in pretty pill form are probably the safest of the bunch (If still not something I'd try myself), but even those are considerably more dangerous than alcohol. One can debate about the cutoff point where society at large, through its enforcement organ (The state) should say 'No, you can't do that, the risk of a fuckup is too high', but IMHO, the position we're at right now is a pretty acceptable one (Though personally, I'm more okay with designer drugs for clubbing than with cigarettes). If our experiences with hard drugs during the aforementioend period - late 19th, early 20th century - are anything to go by (And they are), we should not desire to legalise them.

Designer drugs are basically any drug designed as an analog to another drug. With proper research and testing it's most likely possible that all of our recreational drugs could be replaced with safer, better analogs, much like the pharmaceutical industry continues to improve products.

[Xandyzon]

I always find there is something in history that can guide us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_C ... d_drugs.27

Personally, it's reading the article above, and thinking "wow, the police are really a bunch of tools" that lets me realize, that people are gonna do their drugs, legal or illegal, despite what the authorities say. It's only when the society comes together that we can make positive change.

What happened to the days were the government was supposed to be on the side of its people?

[Nazis in Space]

I always find there is something in history that can guide us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_C ... d_drugs.27

Personally, it's reading the article above, and thinking "wow, the police are really a bunch of tools" that lets me realize, that people are gonna do their drugs, legal or illegal, despite what the authorities say. It's only when the society comes together that we can make positive change.

What happened to the days were the government was supposed to be on the side of its people?

It's rather telling that a community that started out with hard drugs being 'Legal' decided that the effects thereof were unacceptable, and proceeded to effectively ban them, akin to government policy, innit?

[Ashmoria]

I've heard the argument that if drugs were legal, crime would drop, because the drug cartels and gangs would have no reason to exist. I Do not fully understand this for two reasons:

The first reason: Many of the people who support the legalization of drugs promotion their taxation. Would that also give the cartel a reason to exist by providing tax free drugs?

And the second reason: Certain drugs such as heroin is highly addictive. Wouldn't there be people who became addicted to these drugs and must resort to crime to get them?

Please correct me if I made ​​a mistake.

drug crime would go down, it wouldnt disappear.

removing the penalties for using would allow the police to concentrate on actual criminals--like your heroin addict from above--and society to concentrate on addiction treatment.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

There's historical precedence for legalized drugs = lower crime.

It's called Prohibition.

Not so much historical, you can see it today.
And you are absolutely right, blanket banning of something almost encourages its use.

You could tax the pot that you buy from a local shop, and then tax drug-growing paraphernalia.
So it's be just like with cigarettes. It's more expensive and convenient to buy a pack of 10, 20 whatever - but it's cheaper to buy some paper, filters and tobacco and roll your own. It'd be the same situation with growing your own pot, just a couple months extra wait and about 9 more steps.

[Vhrach Xian Achiim]

Well, I was just thinking, not that I'm against drug legalisation....
But, if murder, theft, assault, etc. was legal, wouldn't, technically, crime rates drop?

[Xandyzon]

I always find there is something in history that can guide us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_C ... d_drugs.27

Personally, it's reading the article above, and thinking "wow, the police are really a bunch of tools" that lets me realize, that people are gonna do their drugs, legal or illegal, despite what the authorities say. It's only when the society comes together that we can make positive change.

What happened to the days were the government was supposed to be on the side of its people?

It's rather telling that a community that started out with hard drugs being 'Legal' decided that the effects thereof were unacceptable, and proceeded to effectively ban them, akin to government policy, innit?

Uhm, where do you see "government policy" in my post? If anything, I'm stating that "government policy" helped nothing in that case. The governments only policy was to get rid of all the people of Christina, and they mean to do this by police force. How did this have an impact on the hard drug trade?
The people made the impact, not the government. (so i think we're really saying the same thing)

[San Monteriano]

I'm a supporter of legalizing Cannabis and Marijuana, but with a government tax and heavily regulation by the government and external organizations. However, with more addictive drugs such as Cocaine and Heroin, I don't approve. But, when you look at it, its not the drugs that are the problem, they are only a factor (a large factor, nonetheless) to the problem; the problem is people in general, if - and that's a MASSIVE if - people were more sensible in controlling their intake with everything and moderating what they have and how much they have of it, then I'm sure the world would be different, but we all know that's not going to happen, at least any time soon. It really depends how you look at this topic; governmentally, socially, economically, or any other way you can analyse this topic and the problem of drugs.

[Nazis in Space]

It's rather telling that a community that started out with hard drugs being 'Legal' decided that the effects thereof were unacceptable, and proceeded to effectively ban them, akin to government policy, innit?

Uhm, where do you see "government policy" in my post? If anything, I'm stating that "government policy" helped nothing in that case. The governments only policy was to get rid of all the people of Christina, and they mean to do this by police force. How did this have an impact on the hard drug trade?
The people made the impact, not the government. (so i think we're really saying the same thing)

You're missing the point.

This thread is about the pro and contra of hard drug legalisation.

Danish hippies provide an interesting example how a base democratic and effectively anarchic society, starting out with hard drugs being perfectly legal within its social context, proceeds to effectively ban them after a fairly short amount of time, since the associated problems ended up ticking off the hippies, causing them to react in effectively the same fashion as the oh so oppressive and clueless 'Normal' governments.

It's a pretty good example of hard drug legalisation not having its suggested, positive effects, but... The exact opposite, to the point where they got banned again.

[Thalam]

I've heard the argument that if drugs were legal, crime would drop, because the drug cartels and gangs would have no reason to exist. I Do not fully understand this for two reasons:

The first reason: Many of the people who support the legalization of drugs promotion their taxation. Would that also give the cartel a reason to exist by providing tax free drugs?

Legalizing drugs and making them commercially available would lower the cost no matter what. Part of the reason drugs are expensive is because they are illegal, so those who sell them can jack up the price. Additionally, things like marijuana should be in the same category as beer - either available commercially for purchase, or growable at home. After prohibition of alcohol ended, criminal organizations lost essentially all of their black market profits.

And the second reason: Certain drugs such as heroin is highly addictive. Wouldn't there be people who became addicted to these drugs and must resort to crime to get them?

Yes, no matter the legal status of drugs, some people will become addicted. It's pretty much inevitable. The best solution (imo) would be to provide clinics, much like already extant methadone clinics, for the distribution of drugs like heroin to people who are already addicted. This would give them a safe way and environment to satisfy their physiological cravings, and doses could easily be regulated to prevent overdose. At the same time, these places could offer rehab and treatment.

Basically the prohibition of drugs is ineffective, because people who want to use them will find a way anyway. This inevitably leads to drugs cartels and criminal organizations selling drugs, making profit, and becoming very powerful. The problems we are seeing in Mexico are the direct result of the "war on drugs". Prohibition has been shown to be ineffective, it leads to huge costs in law enforcement, and has caused the United States to be the most jailing nation on the planet. over 700 out of every 100,000 people in the U.S. are in jail, compared to maybe 50-60 in more progressive nations, and even ahead of such nations as Russia and China.

[Sociobiology]

I'd like to see an honest re-appraisal of the reasons for the original banning of most "drugs". Also an honest appraisal of the effectiveness of the laws, and their overall impact. And finally, an honest cost/benefit analysis.

well cannabis was banned to make it easy to deport illegal and legal immigrants from Mexico during a time of job scarcity, when immigration was a perceived threat, since cannabis was the drug of choice for these immigrants at the time. Opium (and its Derivatives) was banned to make it easier to deport Asian immigrants during an economic downturn were immigration was a perceived threat.
I see a reoccurring theme

[Nazis in Space]

I'd like to see an honest re-appraisal of the reasons for the original banning of most "drugs". Also an honest appraisal of the effectiveness of the laws, and their overall impact. And finally, an honest cost/benefit analysis.

well cannabis was banned to make it easy to deport illegal and legal immigrants from Mexico during a time of job scarcity, when immigration was a perceived threat, since cannabis was the drug of choice for these immigrants at the time. Opium (and its Derivatives) was banned to make it easier to deport Asian immigrants during an economic downturn were immigration was a perceived threat.
I see a reoccurring theme

Are you sure these reasons apply for the drugs in question being banned in, say, various european or asian countries?

[Thalam]

I'd like to see an honest re-appraisal of the reasons for the original banning of most "drugs". Also an honest appraisal of the effectiveness of the laws, and their overall impact. And finally, an honest cost/benefit analysis.

well cannabis was banned to make it easy to deport illegal and legal immigrants from Mexico during a time of job scarcity, when immigration was a perceived threat, since cannabis was the drug of choice for these immigrants at the time. Opium (and its Derivatives) was banned to make it easier to deport Asian immigrants during an economic downturn were immigration was a perceived threat.
I see a reoccurring theme

Most drugs currently banned were done so in a craze of xenophobic racism.

[Kazomal]

I've heard the argument that if drugs were legal, crime would drop, because the drug cartels and gangs would have no reason to exist. I Do not fully understand this for two reasons:

The first reason: Many of the people who support the legalization of drugs promotion their taxation. Would that also give the cartel a reason to exist by providing tax free drugs?

And the second reason: Certain drugs such as heroin is highly addictive. Wouldn't there be people who became addicted to these drugs and must resort to crime to get them?

Please correct me if I made ​​a mistake.

1. When alcohol was illegal, it promoted crime. When alcohol was legal but taxed, as it is now, the amount and scope of crime related to illegal alcohol distribution fell dramatically. So yeah, there is far less incentive. Just like booze and tobacco is still smuggled today, to avoid taxes, but they do not spawn nearly the level of crime as alcohol did when it was illegal.

2. Alcohol is addictive, and people commit crimes both under it's influence, and in order to get it to feed their addiction. However the amount of crime caused by this is much less than the organized crime that prohibition empowers.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

I always find there is something in history that can guide us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_C ... d_drugs.27

Personally, it's reading the article above, and thinking "wow, the police are really a bunch of tools" that lets me realize, that people are gonna do their drugs, legal or illegal, despite what the authorities say. It's only when the society comes together that we can make positive change.

What happened to the days were the government was supposed to be on the side of its people?

It's rather telling that a community that started out with hard drugs being 'Legal' decided that the effects thereof were unacceptable, and proceeded to effectively ban them, akin to government policy, innit?

Might have to do with hoping it would make the Danish government leave them alone?