5 ms·

True. Luckily it's a much smaller market to begin with since most of the population drinks and only a relatively small fraction is interested in drugs besides m

by orbenn 15y ago

True. Luckily it's a much smaller market to begin with since most of the population drinks and only a relatively small fraction is interested in drugs besides marijuana. I'm not really worried about the employment angle because cartel jobs aren't productive jobs. Essentially you're freeing up labor for the productive part of the economy which makes for a higher standard of living for everyone. It might take a year or two to have nicely packaged heroin from well known companies available in pretty boxes in liquor stores, but I think you'd be rid of all the cartel violence within 6 months.

ChuckMcM 15y ago
I think the point on the violence being reduced is a good one. I personally am in favor of legalizing drugs and allowing market forces to compensate the changes in societal risk; for example for people who are convicted of driving under the influence their insurance goes up and eventually their license gets revoked. Alcohol and cigarette taxes funding outreach and education efforts etc. Given the various occupy activity, and the quantity of money that drugs influence, it seems like the 1% would figure out how to move all that money to them if they could do so without risking being arrested, extradited, murdered, Etc. Perhaps an unintended side effect, or perhaps not, but until recently I hadn't given a lot of thought to who would benefit most financially from such a change.
- orbenn 15y ago
  Real drug lords are part of the 1%. Most 1%'ers only work in one industry or a few related ones. US policy is less about who would benefit from legalization (everyone) and more about who would suffer. If prohibition were ended there would be massive cuts in the budget and staff of the ATF, DEA, police, the entire boarder security industry, infantry defense contractors, prisons, courts and law firms. Many politicians went to law school. No one wants to put their friends out of work.
MichaelGG 15y ago
Heroin was a trademark of Bayer. There are currently several companies manufacturing it for European countries. If it was more widely legal, why wouldn't production ramp up very quickly?
- pstuart 15y ago
  Like Oxycodone?

by orbenn 15y ago

ChuckMcM 15y ago

I think the point on the violence being reduced is a good one. I personally am in favor of legalizing drugs and allowing market forces to compensate the changes in societal risk; for example for people who are convicted of driving under the influence their insurance goes up and eventually their license gets revoked. Alcohol and cigarette taxes funding outreach and education efforts etc. Given the various occupy activity, and the quantity of money that drugs influence, it seems like the 1% would figure out how to move all that money to them if they could do so without risking being arrested, extradited, murdered, Etc. Perhaps an unintended side effect, or perhaps not, but until recently I hadn't given a lot of thought to who would benefit most financially from such a change.

orbenn 15y ago
Real drug lords are part of the 1%. Most 1%'ers only work in one industry or a few related ones. US policy is less about who would benefit from legalization (everyone) and more about who would suffer. If prohibition were ended there would be massive cuts in the budget and staff of the ATF, DEA, police, the entire boarder security industry, infantry defense contractors, prisons, courts and law firms. Many politicians went to law school. No one wants to put their friends out of work.

MichaelGG 15y ago

Heroin was a trademark of Bayer. There are currently several companies manufacturing it for European countries. If it was more widely legal, why wouldn't production ramp up very quickly?

pstuart 15y ago
Like Oxycodone?