WTF? I lived in Moscow till I was 9 and my dad resides there. There is no such practice. The worst in recent history is debtor jail, which is common in parts of Europe, Middle East and pretty much most of the world. I'm sure back in the ole times, they used to execute some debtors and tax evaders here and there, but then they used to execute for almost anything.
I disagree. If legalized, drugs would become cheaper, correct? It is proven economics that as a commodity becomes cheaper, demand rises. Why wouldn't hard drugs follow this pattern? I personally would not start doing cocaine because it was legal and cheap, but what makes you think others wouldn't? By legalizing it and giving it the equal stature of alcohol and tobacco, the message being sent is that instead of a drink or a cigarette, it's okay to do a line of cocaine. Or some heroin....or crystal meth....or some acid, etc. Legalization would remove the stigma attached to dangerous drugs, and would IMHO lead to a new wave of experimenters. For example, crack is a cheaper but more potent version of cocaine. When crack hit the streets in the 80's, it created an epidemic that greatly increased the number of addicts. So now we have more addicts. Many hard drugs develop a tolerance in the users, causing them to have to consume more of the drug in order to get the same high they achieved previously with lesser amounts. Drugs may be cheaper with legalization, but there are more addicts now who have to commit crimes to support their tolerance-increasing habits. Do the legalizers thus suggest that an unlimited supply of drugs be made available free of charge to users as their tolerance increases? If not, where will these addicts get the funds to buy the steadily increasing amounts of drugs they require? The same way they always have: crime. So you have crime to support the addict's habit. You also have more drug-induced crimes occuring because there are more addicts. Finally, would the black market for drugs really go away? Supposing legalization occurs and a company like Merck gets into the hard drug business. Let's say it's selling a gram of cocaine for $50. Isn't a black market going to emerge regardless of the price in order to undercut Merck? And wouldn't that black market be driven by the same cartels or producers that exist today? Would the Cali cartel, for example, just decide to call it a day because of legalization? Wouldn't they fight tooth and nail to not only keep their grip on the market share of addicts but to use violence against Merck? They aren't normal businessmen, after all! They are hardened, violent criminals! So wouldn't they go after Merck's board, or labs, or scientists, etc? And wouldn't they also terrorize their addict customers with threats and violence to ensure that they buy the black market drugs? And if it's the US government producing and selling the drugs, why would there not be a situation a la Columbia, with the drug lords assassinating government officials, judges, police, military, etc.? I really can't imagine the cartels throwing their hands up in the air and just giving up their enormous profits without an enormous struggle. I agree that it is very easy for kids to get drugs. I think legalization would make it worse. Most kids, if they're raised properly, respect the law for the most part, or know that it's "wrong" to do drugs. By removing the stigma of drugs through legalization, I fear that would send a message that it's okay to do drugs once you're a certain age, as is the case with alcohol and tobacco. I don't know about prison affecting the dealers. Drug dealing is arguably the most lucrative of the criminal professions. Why would a dealer go from dealing to burglary, for example? It would be like exchanging a six-figure income to McDonald's pay. As for users, I agree that they shouldn't be imprisoned. What are these principles? That the current drug war is a failure? If so, I agree wholeheartedly. But just because A isn't working doesn't mean we have to do the polar opposite and do Z, especially if Z will create even more problems and cause more casualties. Finally, I would ask the following to those who support legalization: 1) Who can use these drugs? I'm assuming you're not advocating that they be made available for children - at least I hope so. But what about pregnant women, prison inmates, police, members of the military, people who drive buses or fly planes, etc.? 2) What limits would there be - if any - on the quantity or potency of drugs that the individual can use? Would an unlimited supply of drugs be made available to the habitual users or drug addicts? 3) Who will manufacture, market, and sell the drugs? 4) How much will the drugs cost? Will the drugs be taxed? If so, at what rate? 5) Will drug addiction be able to be used as a defense in civil or criminal trials?
1) People of majority age. Standards and laws applying to those currently employed and required to maintain a sober state of mind will apply. 2) Yes. 3) entrepreneurs and companies probably. 4) I don't know, let the market decide. And Yes, issue tax stamps. 26% sounds good. 5) No, in principle. Just as you can't say, "I was drunk" and skate. Finally, if you ever come to NYC, let's get together for a drink and some toot and discuss it further.
Well, so much for getting rid of drug crime and the black market. LOL. A 26% tax? So I guess if people could buy the same drugs from a dealer tax free why wouldn't they? The answer is they will. And by putting an age barrier on the drugs to only those 18 and older, you just created another black market for those under 18. Well, so much for that. LOL. Basically guys, this is not going to be easy as I think we have found here. At least as far as getting rid of the black market and crime.
Why wouldn't others (besides you and I)? Because drugs are currently not prohibitively expensive. Like I said, virtually everyone who would want to do drugs is already doing them. As for the 'social message' being sent, that's kinda bad luck there for you, isn't it? I mean, let's face it, social norms evolve. Maybe you don't like it that homosexuality is becoming more and more acceptable in society, bad luck for you. I don't really see "I just don't like it" as a very compelling argument, do you? Furthermore, as drug use enters the mainsteam more and more, there will also be greater and greater education and understanding of what is involved with drugs. No one will be able to shy away from the issue and sweep it under the rug as is currently being done. Honestly, having known many 'normal' drug users (my cousin, an IB vice prez, for eg), that just do it recreationally, I hardly expect society to collapse because people can do what they do anyway, just now do it legally. As for your falling prices increasing demand, that's not strictly true either. Demand is quite capable of maintaining its level with falling prices being caused by increased supply. Either way, it's much more likely that existing users will up their intake, coupled with some occasional recreational use, rather than a huge wave of new hard core addicts. But again, mostly amongst current drug users. That's based on your theory that we will get all these new hard core addicts. Whereas, like I said, pretty much everyone that consumes such high levels of drugs is already doing so. Furthermore, even amongst hard core users, believe it or not, hapaboy, they still actually do have more to their lives than just drug consumption. Lol. I've been friends with some pretty hardcore heroin addicts and, this may shock you, some even actually had jobs. Sure, they weren't the happiest campers when they couldn't get a hit, but I can also guarantee you that they didn't just spend every minute of their lives high, even during times when they had plenty of supply. Like I said, you seem to think that addicts will want to do nothing else but get high every spare minute of the day. That's just not true. Depending on how much prices fall as a result of legalization it's quite likely that crime to finance habits will decrease substantially. In my opinion, legal companies started by entrepreneurs will likely be the lowest cost producers. Perhaps not immediately but in time I think the forces of capitalism will ensure that this happens. So there won't really be anyone to undercut. Minus their huge drug income, these cartel leaders etc all of a sudden don't look so scary. Like you said, we probably can expect them to put up a fight, but in time they are sure to the way of the hoola hoop. Sorry hapaboy, I think that is just highly naive thinking. Got kids? They are 'properly raised'? You may just wanna check. Your above point really relates to the fact that you just don't like drugs. You may seem them as the preserve of low lifes, for example. I don't know. But as I said, "I just don't like you doing that Johnny" has never been a compelling argument. I actually see the legalization and loss of stigma attached to drug use as likely to decrease this kind of usage, as many kids do it solely to rebel and be cool. I don't know what kind of image you have of people that deal drugs, but, without putting an exact percentage on it, significant numbers are just normal, mild mannered kids with no predilection for violence looking for an extra buck. Sending these innocents to jail is virtually assured to make them more violent. And given the 'dirty' nature of the drug trade, the next time a problem occurs, is this kid gonna walk away or will his new found attitude take over and he resorts to fists/weapons? Come on man, prison is friggin' 'crime school'. It's a shame what we do to these people. Their lives are ruined for one of the dumbest laws of all time. No, not that the drug war is a failure. The principle is that free people should be free to decide what they can consume as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. It just doesn't get any simpler than that. Yes, their consumption has social costs. And, as you know, so does the overconsumption of hamburgers, and driving cars at excess speed etc.
Seems to me the greatest restistance to legalization comes from people that just don't like the idea of taking drugs, usually because of the image they attach to drug users. Okay, fine; no one's forcing you to like it. I don't like it, can't stand the shit. But does "I don't like it, therefore no one should be able to do it" seem fair?
Just like whiskey, gasoline, and tobacco are taxed at exceedingly high rates and there are markets for them, compliance could be high for taxed drugs. A possible black market is a weak argument, but coming from you, not a great surprise. Weren't you suspended for sexual perversion and criminal harrassment? How did you atone?
No, you are wrong about that. Alcohol and gas and tobacco are taxed at high rates but 26% is not a high rate. It's illegal. Shit, if that 26% tax passed I say legalize drugs tomorrow, hell tonight. I'm 100% behind it. We will make back every penny we spent on Iraq in 3 months. However, that will never happen. Nobody will go for that I'm afraid. You seem to forget my friend that this country fought a war over tax oppression. All you ae doing is exchanging one freedom for another. You have the freedom to do drugs now, but you become even more enslaved by taxation and the regulatory arm of government. You guys come out net negative in that battle I'm afraid. When you said you wanted to tax drugs I was thinking along the lines of a sales tax like 6% to 8%. The only time I would ever think a 26% tax is fair is if we went to my national sales tax where all non essential goods and services were taxed at 28% or so but then you pay no federal income taxes. But you have got to be kidding me if you think anyone, hell, even RM won't go for that I don't think. That is highway robbery 26% on top of federal, state, local, and every other tax under the sun. As far as the black market goes, you are wrong. If you tax drugs at 26%, which is a joke, you will definitely have a black market. Why? Because they can buy the stuff on the whole sale level right, and then sell it on the street tax free. It's still the same stuff you would be getting from Merk, only without the 26% tax. And another thing, I don't know how cheap Merk could actually sell the drugs anyway, remember, they are surely going to market the drugs, and pay for advertising. And that will cost a fortune, not to mention the R&D expense they will incur to make the drugs better. Who is going to pay for that? You will. It will be factored into the cost. I guess what I am saying is no matter how cheap Merk sells the drug for, the street dealer will sell it for fifty cents on the dollar and hence will still get a lot of the business. Now these guys might take a small hit from Merk, but that will just force them to be more aggressive in other areas and hence, you won't see any decline in real crime. It will most likely hold steady. And to answer your last question, no, I was not suspended for sexual perversion or criminal harassment. Where you?
Mav, will you ever start making sense? Cigarettes and booze are already taxed at OVER 26%, and there are no significant black market issues. Legalize drugs, but impose a 26% excise tax? Fine by me.
Uhh, I don't know where you get your cigarettes but I just looked it up and the avg tax in this country is about 11% on cigarettes. And even that is pretty bad. Let me ask you something RM. And give me an honest answer OK? Which would you rather have? What we have now, where you can basically buy any drug you want for pretty damn cheap, you just have to use it in the privacy of your own home, or you would like the government to step in and regulate it, tax it 26%, let the FDA decide how potent they want to make the drug and then put all sorts of bullshit restrictions on it and water it down so it's basically ineffective. I'm kind of curious. Because I don't buy into this idea that these drugs would be cheap if they were legal and the 26% tax is outrageous. You basically would be spending twice as much money for a product that is only 50% as effective? Are you telling me you would be OK with that? I'm really confused here. And while you are answering me, here is a link to an article that describes what happened in Canada when they started raising the taxes on cigs. http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0092.pdf http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/ba/ba231.html Here is an excerpt. A Tax Hike Could Lead to Increased Crime. Supporters of the Hatch-Kennedy tobacco tax argue that a hike will create an incentive to help vulnerable populations kick the habit. But empirical data show that cigarette tax increases have not deterred a majority of smokers. According to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health, cigarette tax increases from 1955 to 1988 caused the average smoker to reduce consumption by about three packs per year (2.4 percent). So what happens to the majority of smokers who don't quit or cut their smoking in half in response to cigarette tax increases? They either pay more for their cigarettes or turn to the black market, as Canadian smokers did. The Canadian Experience. In 1991, Canada introduced a $5 per pack ($3.72 in U.S. dollars) tax on cigarettes. What did Canadian smokers do? A great number of them avoided paying the new cigarette tax and instead purchased their cigarettes from smugglers. According to a 1994 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association: An estimated 30 percent of cigarettes smoked in Canada were smuggled in and sold for about half the price of legal cigarettes. About 80 percent of those illegal cigarettes were manufactured in Canada, legally exported to the United States and then returned illegally. In addition, cigarette smuggling became attractive to organized crime and increased the danger to law enforcement officials. It also created a hardship for the owners of small stores who relied on cigarette revenue. As a result, Canada eventually was forced to cut its cigarette tax in order to collect revenues.