Illegalizing All Drugs

[Funkyterrance]

Aside from the restrictions on freedom and the obvious downsides of a black market there's got to be some benefits from this being enacted. I'm thinking along the lines of more productive/clear headed humans in general.

[new guy1]

Prohibition for alcohol didnt work the first time.

[jonesthecurl]

Don't deprive me of tea. You wouldn't like the me without tea.

[new guy1]

Yeah, I need my coffee or Im gonna pop a cap in someone.

[rdsrds2120]

No more aspirin. Ouch.

BMO

[BigBallinStalin]

Aside from the restrictions on freedom and the obvious downsides of a black market there's got to be some benefits from this being enacted. I'm thinking along the lines of more productive/clear headed humans in general.

How many of the Great Artists used drugs?

Clarity of mind--which can come with LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs--is not a benefit in all cases at all times.


In order to compare relative benefits, you have to look at the opportunity cost (i.e. the value of the second-best opportunity foregone). Otherwise, you can make silly discussions about the benefits of fascism, which surely would create plenty of unity among the people.

[Funkyterrance]

Aside from the restrictions on freedom and the obvious downsides of a black market there's got to be some benefits from this being enacted. I'm thinking along the lines of more productive/clear headed humans in general.

How many of the Great Artists used drugs?

Clarity of mind--which can come with LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs--is not a benefit in all cases at all times.


In order to compare relative benefits, you have to look at the opportunity cost (i.e. the value of the second-best opportunity foregone). Otherwise, you can make silly discussions about the benefits of fascism, which surely would create plenty of unity among the people.

Ok aside from a veiled accusation of my being a fascist I'll consider your post, BBS.

You've got to admit the genius created from drugs is the exception. I've known quite a few habitual drug users in my day and believe you me, they aren't to be confused with geniuses. They are more prone to mind-numbing activities as drugs has caused them if anything a regression in those areas which most would argue contribute to self-betterment. Overall I'd say 0% of them are better off having started using drugs.
Most people lead very average lives and their artistic talents will be wasted either way. I think those individuals would have clearer heads, be more productive and overall be happier if all recreational drugs were made illegal.

To those who responded about caffeine, etc., have you ever tried quitting caffeine? It's not that bad once you get used to it. I've tried it and eventually you don't need it to be just as productive. I drink tea every day but I suppose I would consider giving it up permanently for the greater good. It's not that important to me.

As far as all the drugs used for medicinal use, I dunno maybe you could only have them when you're in the hospital or under a nurse's care or something? Small stuff that you buy over the counter isn't strong enough to really make a dent in any real discomfort anyhow so it's an acceptable loss as far as I'm concerned.

[BigBallinStalin]

Aside from the restrictions on freedom and the obvious downsides of a black market there's got to be some benefits from this being enacted. I'm thinking along the lines of more productive/clear headed humans in general.

How many of the Great Artists used drugs?

Clarity of mind--which can come with LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs--is not a benefit in all cases at all times.


In order to compare relative benefits, you have to look at the opportunity cost (i.e. the value of the second-best opportunity foregone). Otherwise, you can make silly discussions about the benefits of fascism, which surely would create plenty of unity among the people.

Ok aside from a veiled accusation of my being a fascist I'll consider your post, BBS.

FT, if I wanted to call you a fascist, I'd simply say, "you're a fascist."
Therefore, the only person here suggesting that you're a fascist is yourself and possibly AndyDufresne.

You've got to admit the genius created from drugs is the exception. I've known quite a few habitual drug users in my day and believe you me, they aren't to be confused with geniuses. They are more prone to mind-numbing activities as drugs has caused them if anything a regression in those areas which most would argue contribute to self-betterment. Overall I'd say 0% of them are better off having started using drugs.
Most people lead very average lives and their artistic talents will be wasted either way. I think those individuals would have clearer heads, be more productive and overall be happier if all recreational drugs were made illegal.

You know, we have no way of knowing this. I'd imagine that their lives would have been more intolerable without drugs, so their chances of committing suicide would have been higher, which in turn would deny society the fruits of their mutually beneficial exchanges. It's a possibility we have to consider and will never know for certain.

What is certain is that prohibition forces up the prices of drugs; therefore, they must allocate more resources to exchange for these goods. With lower prices, more resources would be freed up for other valuable uses (e.g. more food, better housing, or more leisure).

The problem with being an Austrian economist and/or a libertarian is being humble about other people's preferences. We do not have access to their minds, so we cannot know their benefits and costs (BnC's). Nor do we know if means A would bestow BnC's comparable to means B--unless of course you conducted rigorous testing, but even then we cannot be certain.

Most people ought to be convinced of not doing so many drugs, but this should only be done voluntarily, so state-mandated prohibition is off the table. In order for humans to improve ourselves, we must first do so with morally acceptable means; otherwise, we corrupt ourselves. Threatening people with a gun and imprisonment doesn't make you a good person--regardless of your intentions.

Still, this discussion is pointless because you're not examining benefits and costs.

[Funkyterrance]

FT, if I wanted to call you a fascist, I'd simply say, "you're a fascist."

Some would argue that forwardness is not typically your style when you make short posts but yeah was meant mainly to be a joke. Just thought I would check to be sure.

You know, we have no way of knowing this. I'd imagine that their lives would have been more intolerable without drugs, so their chances of committing suicide would have been higher, which in turn would deny society the fruits of their mutually beneficial exchanges. It's a possibility we have to consider and will never know for certain.

Of course we can't know this for certain but one can surmise. Of those people I mentioned, a lot of them had promising futures in regard to careers, etc. but ended up being more or less permanently derailed from this track due to drugs. I agree that drugs are a way that some people choose to cope with personal problems but they are a poor remedy, if a remedy at all. If all the money spent on drugs were spent on say... therapy, it would probably give the same benefits of drugs combined with the state of mind needed to be an effective person.
It's also proven that drugs actually increase suicidal tendencies in most cases unless you're referring to ssri's and such(these would fall under the hospitalization drugs).

What is certain is that prohibition forces up the prices of drugs; therefore, they must allocate more resources to exchange for these goods. With lower prices, more resources would be freed up for other valuable uses (e.g. more food, better housing, or more leisure).

I sometimes wonder if the failure of prohibition was that it didn't last long enough. If enough generations went without alcohol I image it might be bred out of popularity. Besides, aren't the cheapest drugs those that are abused the most? Alcohol is way up there as far as being responsible for deaths, etc..

Most people ought to be convinced of not doing so many drugs, but this should only be done voluntarily, so state-mandated prohibition is off the table. In order for humans to improve ourselves, we must first do so with morally acceptable means; otherwise, we corrupt ourselves. Threatening people with a gun and imprisonment doesn't make you a good person--regardless of your intentions.

Well I'm not exactly driving for the banning of all drugs, I'm just entertaining the idea. I'm not entirely sure yet if it's a good idea or not.

Still, this discussion is pointless because you're not examining benefits and costs.

Well, one might say that you're only examining costs in the short term. I'm trying to look at it from a long term perspective. If people were sober more I feel like there is sufficient evidence in firsthand experience to show that they are more productive.

My problem with the law is the inconsistency of its application, I don't have a problem with the principles as they were intended so I don't really have a problem with making certain substances illegal, at least in theory. People just lose their heads when it comes to drugs and I don't think education or any other alternative to the law is powerful enough to combat them.

[Army of GOD]

no one post in this thread

if you feed the troll he's just going to shit all over this place. This thread is the manifestation of his shit.

[BigBallinStalin]

FT, if I wanted to call you a fascist, I'd simply say, "you're a fascist."

Some would argue that forwardness is not typically your style when you make short posts but yeah was meant mainly to be a joke. Just thought I would check to be sure.

You know, we have no way of knowing this. I'd imagine that their lives would have been more intolerable without drugs, so their chances of committing suicide would have been higher, which in turn would deny society the fruits of their mutually beneficial exchanges. It's a possibility we have to consider and will never know for certain.

Of course we can't know this for certain but one can surmise. Of those people I mentioned, a lot of them had promising futures in regard to careers, etc. but ended up being more or less permanently derailed from this track due to drugs. I agree that drugs are a way that some people choose to cope with personal problems but they are a poor remedy, if a remedy at all. If all the money spent on drugs were spent on say... therapy, it would probably give the same benefits of drugs combined with the state of mind needed to be an effective person.
It's also proven that drugs actually increase suicidal tendencies in most cases unless you're referring to ssri's and such(these would fall under the hospitalization drugs).

And the counterfactual cannot be shown (i.e. how much likely are people to commit suicide by being denied drugs?) or (what would their future productivity be had they not done drugs?). Again, who knows.

Drug use is a problem for some, sure, but then again for some it's also a blessing in disguise. People can learn from mistakes, so we should be aware of the population which uses drugs and then turns away/decreases intake. Would they have become upstanding citizens without first failing? We don't know, but I do know that success can require failure in many ways. And then there are those who perform very well while on drugs--aside from great artists, so the main point here is to consider Benefits and Costs.

What is certain is that prohibition forces up the prices of drugs; therefore, they must allocate more resources to exchange for these goods. With lower prices, more resources would be freed up for other valuable uses (e.g. more food, better housing, or more leisure).

I sometimes wonder if the failure of prohibition was that it didn't last long enough. If enough generations went without alcohol I image it might be bred out of popularity. Besides, aren't the cheapest drugs those that are abused the most? Alcohol is way up there as far as being responsible for deaths, etc..

Most people ought to be convinced of not doing so many drugs, but this should only be done voluntarily, so state-mandated prohibition is off the table. In order for humans to improve ourselves, we must first do so with morally acceptable means; otherwise, we corrupt ourselves. Threatening people with a gun and imprisonment doesn't make you a good person--regardless of your intentions.

Well I'm not exactly driving for the banning of all drugs, I'm just entertaining the idea. I'm not entirely sure yet if it's a good idea or not.

Still, this discussion is pointless because you're not examining benefits and costs.

Well, one might say that you're only examining costs in the short term. I'm trying to look at it from a long term perspective. If people were sober more I feel like there is sufficient evidence in firsthand experience to show that they are more productive.

My problem with the law is the inconsistency of its application, I don't have a problem with the principles as they were intended so I don't really have a problem with making certain substances illegal, at least in theory. People just lose their heads when it comes to drugs and I don't think education or any other alternative to the law is powerful enough to combat them.

My points apply to both short-term and long-term. They need not to be limited to one or the other.

RE: underlined, sure, which is why organizations Voluntarily impose restrictions on drug use at work--and people Voluntarily agree to them. That's the morally good society--supported in the free market. What you favor is simply incompatible with living in a free society and learning how to deal with it.jpg.

RE: prohibition in theory. That's the problem here. You're washing away the costs (which we've yet to get into), imaging a limited scope of affected people, and then concluding "certain drugs should be banned." If the means don't lead to your outcome, then there's a problem with the means. If the means have been ineffective for decades, then it's time to completely revamp the means.

RE: education, law, etc. Sure, the state is definitely powerful and great at combating people, but what's worse: drug addicts or dead people?--thanks to the War on Drugs.

Living in a free society requires responsibilities that can't be shuffled onto the state and its coercive powers. We must be incentivized to help our fellow citizens, and you won't get that kind of behavior by having the government do it for you--and poorly at that.

[xeno]

no one post in this thread

if you feed the troll he's just going to shit all over this place. This thread is the manifestation of his shit.

I got some sex tonight!

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Aside from the restrictions on freedom and the obvious downsides of a black market there's got to be some benefits from this being enacted. I'm thinking along the lines of more productive/clear headed humans in general.

There are literally none.

The costs incurred with enforcing such a law vastly exceeds any supposed benefit (police funding, weapons, homicides for both law enforcement and drug pushers, jails, creation of criminal population, etc. etc.- just all around general grief.)

The type of person who becomes hopelessly addicted to meth isn't likely to give a shit about your law. There's a good chance he hasn't any chance of being a productive person, either. Even if, by some stretch of the imagination, your meth head had gone out and started working at Toxic Smell filling shitty taco shells with beans instead of turning to meth, the coercion required by gov't to fund proposed law isn't worth it.

Some people have to learn the hard way. Others have to O.D. in gutters. Putting the responsibility on others means they don't learn.

edit: Should also mention that I have a little pet theory. The more narcotics you outlaw, the greater avenue you create for enterprising and/or desperate individuals to make derivatives or new drugs. I'm fairly certain drugs like meth, black tar heroin, or Krokodile would never be made had tamer drugs not been outlawed.

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

no one post in this thread

if you feed the troll he's just going to shit all over this place. This thread is the manifestation of his shit.

The great thing is that regardless of his intentions, we still get good outcomes (e.g. another written defense for freer markets/freer society).

[oVo]

The reality Terrance is that Prohibition didn't last at all. Politicians and people of means had all the quality booze they wanted, while the less affluent were dry or had access to suspect alcohol and prosecution by authorities if busted.

I agree with you that the biggest problem has always been law enforcement and the inconsistencies in the way laws are applied. Also --as BBS pointed out I think-- people are not responsible enough to handle it... drunk driving is evidence of that all by itself. People who have no focus or direction in life tend to use recreational drugs as an escape from their own reality and the legality issue won't change that.

If all drugs were sold over the counter --as in Mexico-- and there was actual truth in advertising instead of the BS propaganda drug war, maybe it would all be handled better. One problem with illegal drugs is quality. Too often buyers don't even get what they paid for --something that got a boost starting in the late 70's with greedy dealers-- which is a different type of health risk.

[2dimes]

It should address the "over population" problem.

[DoomYoshi]

define "drug". Are we talking insulin here? Vitamin B? Carbon atoms?

[stahrgazer]

edit: Should also mention that I have a little pet theory. The more narcotics you outlaw, the greater avenue you create for enterprising and/or desperate individuals to make derivatives or new drugs. I'm fairly certain drugs like meth, black tar heroin, or Krokodile would never be made had tamer drugs not been outlawed.

Tend to agree with you here, to an extent. Other substances may have been "made" - but they wouldn't be as lucrative if "tamer" drugs were available. Moreover, if those tamer drugs were not illegal, people who want the tamer things wouldn't have to associate with "criminals" to get them.

As for the o.p.'s idea that making all drugs illegal would result in more "clearheaded" humans - strongly disagree. There are plenty of loonies (aka not clear headed) who never used drugs at all; human stupidity came before "drugs."

[Nola_Lifer]

I wish I was smart enough to start a counter thread.

[oVo]

Use an abacus.

Legalizing drugs would improve the quality of what's out there.
As it is, people introduce a lot of garbage into their systems
with the crap they buy on the street.

Profits for illicit drugs might drop with the availability as well,
if the taxes levied remain reasonable. It's also possible that
prison populations would decrease.

If prison numbers went down maybe the education industry
could become an actual priority and produce a population
smart enough to be responsible in their use of drugs.

Of course if the general population was better educated, where
would the country find the employees willing to work long hours
to support the CEOs salaries (.05%) who hold the purse strings
to most of the wealth in America?

[betiko]

funky, if you're gonna start a thread for the sake of starting a thread without even believing for 1 second you're making any sense, can we call you a troll?