Posted by Adam on January 4, 2000, at 21:08:12
In reply to Re: US Wants Web Drug Regulation, posted by Scott L. Schofield on January 4, 2000, at 11:08:10
>
> > The reality of supply and demand essentially compels us to take a different approach to the drug "problem" than what we have used in the past.
>
> Can you describe briefly this reality? What does “essentially” mean?My statement above is based on lectures I had in a microeconomics course I took in college. I must admit, I don't have the notes with me (probably in my parents attick, and thus I won't be able to get my hands on them for a while), so I can't give specific examples just yet. What I remember quite clearly is that if you assumed certain market forces (reasonable assumptions given the "utility" of drugs to addicts and affictionados and the inelasticity of the market), the demand is simply enormously strong, and drives supply curves in a rather inexorable direction. My professor (a very straightlaced guy, which made his assertions a bit suprising at first) felt that short of building an impenetrable wall around the US, you could never prevent drugs from getting in from the outside. And what does one do about the drugs coming from inside? The only solution that he (and it would seem many other economists, though I never saw the studies he referenced) could see was to legalize all drugs and tax them as much as the market could stand without recreating the contraband problem.
It made perfect sense to me then, and still does. Besides, how hard is it really to get controlled substances? I could get drugs in high school easier than I could get beer. In college it was effortless. From where I sit, the war on drugs as it is being fought is a spectacular failure, and I speculate it exists more to provide its supporters with political cachet than to serve any practical purpose. It is an expensive and misdirected waste, IMO.
>
>
> Could you please direct me to some of the sources you found that detail the reasons why this type of commerce is unstoppable?See above. I'll look, if you like, though I imagine the specific info. you want is "out there" on the 'net. I found this link in about two minutes...
http://darkchylde.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/hempwitchhunt.html
A bit of a screed, but references "the experts".
> Thanks.
>
> > Enough useless moralism about chemicals.
>
> Useless?
>Yes. Blind "morals" and cynical politics are the only plausible explanation for the drug policy of the United States as it exists. No one would argue illicit drugs are harmless any more than one would argue EtOH is harmless. Yet the latter is a legal controlled substance, partly because enough "moral" people think alcohol is somehow preferable, and because our attempts at prohibition did more harm than good. This is the historical reality of booze in the U.S. Why should reefer be any different? And how do we draw the line between supposed "gateway" drugs like cannibis and, say, crack cocaine?
I'm on a little bit of methamphetamine, after all. Perhaps because it is just the byproduct of "good drug" (selegiline) usage I escape social deviancy in the eyes of some. Then again, maybe not. I'll still have to explain myself the next time I need to pee in a cup for somebody, and as far as I'm concerned what I'm taking is nobody's good buisiness but mine. I'm thinking of trying some nootropics to combat memory problems in a few months that I'll have to order from overseas. Why should anybody interfere with this?
Legalize, regulate, and educate. It's the only practical way to deal with psychoactive substances. It's asinine to criminalize addiction based solely on chemical structure, and doubly asinine to swell jails with responsible individuals for putting certain things into their own bodies.
poster:Adam
thread:17775
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000101/msgs/18040.html