Another commission has suggested the war on drugs in the USA has failed and to begin with we should legalize Marijuana. My question is: Is persistent Marijuana use in the USA an example of "The Market" overcoming "Central Planning"? It does just come down to individual choice doesn't it? My second question is in regards to welfare. It seems to have utterly failed. What started out as a helping hand has resulted in generations of people living in rundown violent ghettos. Is the failure of Welfare an example of "The Market" overcoming "Central Planning"? The reason I bring this up is because I frankly seem to see "The Market" as an idea being used to explain a lot of social phenomena and it seems to be out of context. But, maybe it is in context? I'm not sure if I know what "The Market" is to be honest. Collective individual choice? If so, shouldn't we say "Society" instead? When I think of The Market, I think of the ability to sell a particular item to people at a profit.
Well, our trade policy created the ghetto. Nobody likes welfare. Social workers treat you like dog poop and screw up your paperwork. You're living on a pittance, at the whim of a rather malicious bureaucracy. Marijuana prohibition is a waste of tax dollars.
There have always been people living in rundown violent ghettos. How can you blame social welfare programs for situations that existed before they did? I'll agree that they have failed to eliminate such people and places. I'm not at all sure that government programs are capable of doing so; certainly not as they have been implemented thus far. I think a much better question to ask would be have they made the situation better or worse? I don't think that question would be at all easy to answer.
The short answer is human variability. Regardless of what social workers do, people fall at various points on the normal distribution curve, and some will be givers, and some will be takers.
Many problems have developed since the legalization of alcohol which everyone said that it wasn't right to keep it illegal as well. Just think of how many lives would have been saved and families kept together possibly if alcohol wasn't legalized. Then there is the tobacco empire that also was legalize because many thought it wouldn't cause many problems either but look at the millions of deaths and illnesses that it has spawned. Now here we are saying that yet another "good " drug should be legalized and when it is many new problems will also be found after it is legal. That's why I still do not think legalizing it should be done but decriminalizing it should be.
I think it has more to do with the fact MJ, causes less trouble than booze and that's legal. It does less damage to the body even with heavy consumption, less public problems....the only real problem is gangs control its trade. They need to make tax money off it.
I don't think that marijuana prohibition is a valid example of "central planning." It seems that you have no real grasp on this issue at all.
And that is exactly an artifact of the prohibition. Legalize it and those gangs will be out of work within the week. You know who the most vociferous opponents of marijuana legalization are? People who produce and/or distribute marijuana illegally. They're making money hand over fist right - tax-free - and would be out of a job in a New York minute if it were ever legalized.
Your thinking . Incentives? Do they work . A lot of central planning is based on it . Around her it is cheaper to buy low fat milk compared to whole milk . Does that stop whole milk drinkers from drinking whole milk ? Does it disrupt natural market choices . Probably not any more than peer presser to drink low fat milk . Can it give some competitors advantages over other competitors ? I think so . Meddling in market fluctuations by central planners looks to me like a garden bed for cronyism. Course Planners think they are the shit an can run all our lives . Talk to a planner for 5 minutes and you can get a feel for what I am talking about . I do believe in planning . I just don't know how much I want someone planning my choices . So around here the City Council changed an interpretation of a zoning ordinance . The interpretation was your garage could not stick out further than the main structure of your house . The reasoning was " It makes it to hard to find your front door and it is offensive to the bike/walk community . It was about to pass ( All progressives were all for it 7 to 5 was going to be the vote going down ) Until Mikey took the podium . See I built a house for a couple and they didn't want a front door . My brain had a hard time computing at the time . What do you mean , you have to have a front door was my response . They said nope , If they know us they will come to the back deck , if not they have no business coming to the the house . I roughed in a header fore a door just incase they changed there mind seeing how it was a barring wall . Anyway back to city Council . I was the last speaker and the building community looked whipped with there heads hung low . So I say , I build houses with out front doors . Why don't you pass an ordinance stating front doors are required . Plus I added a few statements about freedom of choice for the customer and How I don't give a rats ass if you pass this cause I really don't care if I build Snout Houses or not . I work for the customer . We build snout houses because that is what the customer asked for . They always want to blame the developers and builders for shit like this . If you don't know " WE build what the CUSTOMER wants . We would not be building very much at all if we did not do this . Market forces is driven by peoples choices like you said . If the people don't want it it don't get built . If the government pays for it it might get built anyway . Will it be sustainable? I doubt it very much . If the freeloading Money is taken away who will pay for it if the public don't want it ? I support legalization of Mary Jane . Market forces demand it more all the time . One day it will be realized
That is a very interesting concept . Yeah if I was a king-pin I think I might . Not here in Missoula . The Green Card is the thing and being a provider is the new gold rush of Montana . The suppliers are making the money like you can not believe . Weed is cheaper and better . Oh the Tea Baggers are mad as shit . Steam rolling out there fucking ears I tell you . A guy just has to step back and laugh
I have been saying for years that there is an easy way to optimise drug control Not solve it. Drugs will always be a problem, but to get their use and abuse to more manageable proportions. 1. Legalise soft drugs like marijuana, but only when supplied by licensed and regulated suppliers, who meet proper standards and pay tax. Competition between suppliers will keep prices low. Lots of people will use this source, and the illegals will go out of business. I seriously doubt it will increase drug use, since all those who want marijuana are already using it. 2. For hard and addictive drugs, set up clinics where registered addicts can get their daily fix free of charge. The drug pushers have this delightful habit of giving drug fixes for free to newbies, but only for the first couple shots, to make them addicted. Then they charge big bucks. If the newly addicted people can get their fix free at a clinic, the drug pushers will end up just giving away drug and never selling any. They aint gonna keep that up for long! Using a proper clinic gives a lot of other benefits, such as safe needles, programs for those who want to kick the habit, medical supervision, offering less harmful alternatives such as methadone etc. Addicts will no longer turn to crime to fund their habits, which will drop the crime rate. Fewer muggings, fewer burglaries, and fewer women forced into prostitution. Let's face it. The current system is purpose built to make criminals rich, and use that money to branch into a wide range of other harmful activities. The system creates crime. Ditching the current system will increase government's tax take, and reduce the amount of money they waste on pointless anti-drug activities. The change will be very good for the taxpayer.
Some drugs are impossible to completely legalize. Some problems: a) need to be open 24\7 b) bright lights and straight peole make someone on a binge very nervous c) someone with no cash goes to a dealer for...dealer tells the to F off. User walks away because the dealer or his friends will cause major problems - gunshot wounds etc. they aren't as afraid of someone working fro the gov. sitting behind a counter and they arent always thinking rationally but a street dealer makes them think twice about causing trouble. The processing, infrastructure etc. means the price really wont be any cheaper for the user. User still runs out of money those predisposed resorts to crime. You guys arent thinking this through. afa the taxes, dealers spend a lot of money. Weed would be workable but then many weed dealers will just get involved with something else. Unless they apply for licenses to sell themselves.
John Sorry. You are the one not thinking it through. Most of those problems are encountered by the proprieters of booze shops, and they manage OK, and make good money from their businesses. 1. 24 hours? Why should it be different to booze shops? 2. Someone on a binge gets nervous? Again, why should it be different to a booze shop? 3. Someone with no cash? Why should it be different to a booze shop? 4. Price? Drugs would be massively cheaper if legal. The mark up on illegal drugs is mind blowing. Basic marijuana, heroine or cocaine is actually very cheap to produce. What do you reckon poor Afghani farmers get for their opium crop? It is not much! And converting opium to heroine is simple and cheap. Marijuana can be grown in warmer climates for next to nothing. Ditto cocaine. 5. Taxes? Right now, dealers pay no taxes at all. Any increase in tax take is a benefit.
I think you got something . Yeah let anybody who wants to be "a drug addict" Hell there is to many people anyway . Maybe some of them will die . I think there has been programs like your talking about . I saw some negative results about it years ago . Course it could of been Reagan spin doctoring . Old Ronny Baby when he was governor of California he was notorious for shutting down programs . He let the criminally insane out on the streets one time . That is why I get to roam free . Just joking they never caught Me in de first place
