[tomder55]

I don't think for one second that legalizing it will reduce demand.When talking price on the street ,taxing it as you propose cannot compete against the price the consumer pays for the expense the cartels transfer to the consumer for their counter extaditiction efforts. Yes ;they still get their product to the street ,but at a reduced supply and at a greater cost.

Easier availability at lower prices and losing the stigma of it being illegal means increased drug abuse and addiction rates .
Long-term recovery rates for addicts are between a 16% and 20% rate of success .

Taxing to death products like tobacco has created a black market for that product ;so your theory is flawed from the outset. Cartels have been created throughout Europe to exploit the taxation of tobacco by smugglers who use the proceeds to fund jihadist activity. The same is beginning to happen here. Smugglers regularly run the I95 corridor bringing lower taxed product to the north-east.

For years there has been a black market for knock-off regulated perscription drugs ,and even if there wasn't there is still a demand for them by those who would abuse them . That is In's point. Should perscriptions become regularly available off the shelf just because there is an illegal market for them ?

Alcohol and tobacco are but 2 drugs. What is being proposed are whole categories of illegal products being introduced legally into the system including stimulants, hallucinogens, opiates, tranquilizers ,and all types of combos of the toxic brew.

Yes indeed it would be uncharted territory . The one thing I'm sure of is that it would create a bigger demand on law enforcement and social services... not less. I will not even deal with the other social issues like productivity .

[Dare81]

I don't think for one second that legalizing it will reduce demand.When talking price on the street ,taxing it as you propose cannot compete against the price the consumer pays for the expense the cartels transfer to the consumer for their counter extaditiction efforts. Yes ;they still get their product to the street ,but at a reduced supply and at a greater cost.

Easier availability at lower prices and losing the stigma of it being illegal means increased drug abuse and addiction rates .
Long-term recovery rates for addicts are between a 16% and 20% rate of success .

Taxing to death products like tobacco has created a black market for that product ;so your theory is flawed from the outset. Cartels have been created throughout Europe to exploit the taxation of tobacco by smugglers who use the proceeds to fund jihadist activity. The same is beginning to happen here. Smugglers regularily run the I95 corridor bringing lower taxed product to the north-east.

For years there has been a black market for knock-off regulated perscription drugs ,and even if there wasn't there is still a demand for them by those who would abuse them . That is In's point. Should perscriptions become regularily available off the shelf just because there is an illegal market for them ?

Alcohol and tobacco are but 2 drugs. What is being proposed are whole catagories of illegal products being introduced legally into the system including stimulants, hallucinogens, opiates, tranquilizers ,and all types of combos of the toxic brew.

Yes indeed it would be uncharted territory . The one thing I'm sure of is that it would create a bigger demand on law enforcement and social services...not less. I will not even deal with the other social issues like productivity .

People who can buy drugs freely and at something like free-market prices would no longer have to steal to afford cocaine or heroin; dealers would no longer have to use violence and corruption to maintain their market share. Though drugs may harm people, reducing this harm would be a medical problem, not a criminal-justice one. Crime would drop sharply.

Legalizing drugs would means letting the price fall to its competitive rate (plus taxes and advertising costs). That market price would probably be somewhere between one-third and one-twentieth of the illegal price. And more than that the market price would fall. As Harvard’s Mark Moore has pointed out, the "risk price"—that is, all the hazards associated with buying drugs, from being arrested to being ripped off—would also fall, and this decline might be more important than the lower purchase price. Under a legal regime, the consumption of low-priced, low-risk drugs would increase dramatically

[tomder55]

Under a legal regime, the consumption of low-priced, low-risk drugs would increase dramatically

Indeed .

[Dare81]

I think the positive externalities would outweigh the negative ones.

[tomder55]

Externalities address the economics and not the social costs associated . But I'll stay on the economics for another try. There is a fallacy that is becoming standard script that in essence says 'legalize ;tax it to death ,and use the money for rehab." It is a fallacy for a couple of key points .
1. if taxes on legal drugs get high enough, they will completely negate the so called positive consequences of legalization. The California proposal about pot would add a $50/oz. tax.That's $800/lb for a crop that costs about $3/lb to grow. That's plenty reason for the cartels to stay in the business. At that level there would still be criminal distribution of the drug to circumvent the legal supply (see my tobacco example ) . At best the gvt. Puts itself in competition with the cartels in the market place.
(just for clarification... of all the drugs we are talking about ,I get the case for decriminalization of marijuana use... I use the California example for illustration)

2.Again ;using the tobacco example... show me where high taxes on this product have been diverted to resperatory illness care or anti-addiction efforts . It isn't happening . California is not even suggesting that in their proposal . They want to do this to bridge a budget gap .(which could be fixed if the government wasn't the largest employer )

[Dare81]

Externalities address the economics and not the social costs associated . But I'll stay on the economics for another try. There is a fallacy that is becoming standard script that in essence says 'legalize ;tax it to death ,and use the money for rehab." It is a fallacy for a couple of key points .
1. if taxes on legal drugs get high enough, they will completely negate the so called positive consequences of legalization. The California proposal about pot would add a $50/oz. tax.That's $800/lb for a crop that costs about $3/lb to grow. That's plenty reason for the cartels to stay in the business. At that level there would still be criminal distribution of the drug to circumvent the legal supply (see my tobacco example ) . At best the gvt. puts itself in competition with the cartels in the market place.
(just for clarification ....of all the drugs we are talking about ,I get the case for decriminalization of marijuana use......I use the California example for illustration)

2.Again ;using the tobacco example ....show me where high taxes on this product have been diverted to resperatory illness care or anti-addiction efforts . It aint happening . California is not even suggesting that in their proposal . They want to do this to bridge a budget gap .(which could be fixed if the governement wasn't the largest employer )

I donot know who taught you economics but you should ask for a refund.Externalities are a big part of welfare economics, which is all about social costs.

Externalities exist is a situation in which the private costs or benefits to the producers or purchasers of a good or service differs from the total social costs or benefits entailed in its production and consumption.

[tomder55]

I will defer to your knowledge of welfare economics.

[ordinaryguy]

I get the case for decriminalization of marijuana use

As long as it's illegal to possess, it's legal to steal, i.e. if somebody steals your stash, you can't call the cops.

Alaska got it right--legal to grow and possess for personal use, illegal to transport or sell. This insures that it remains a cottage industry instead of becoming big business with all the associated advertising and lobbying.

As for a dramatic increase in demand under a legal regime, in societies where it is legal (or was before the US pressured them into criminalizing it) only about 15% seem to care for it, so it remains a minority.

[tomder55]

Everyone compares it to prohibition . In the United States roughly half the population use alcohol... a far greater percentage than did during the Prohibition era. Why would drug use differ ?