What's new
By:

I knew this was going to happen!

GVC said:
Without enacting other policies to deter use, legalization/decriminalization of drugs should lead to an increase in use, at least in the short-run (all else equal). How this increase occurs is of some interest, perhaps. With legalization, changes in potential consequences (arrest, incarceration) and social norms should increase use at the extensive margin (new users). Legalization should also lead to some decrease in price (depending on the regulatory regime, and how resources are used to combat black market production and sales), which should increase use among current consumers (that is, at the intensive margin).

So what? Is use what we're most concerned about? What about problematic use/abuse (addicts) and youth consumption? Is the criminal law the best way to reduce the negative consequences of drug abuse (in either social or financial cost)?

This is what is most often missed in this discussion. Prohibition costs money...lots of ****ing money. Roughly half of all arrests in America are for marijuana-related offenses; ~90% of those arrests are for simple possession. Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, estimates that the legalization of drugs would save state and federal governments $41.3 billion in enforcement, and potentially yield tax revenues of $46.7 billion. That ~$90 billion can be used to combat drug abuse, and the negative consequences of said abuse, in other ways. It can also be used to focus efforts on actually eliminating the black market, making the use of drugs safer, and also more effectively keeping drugs out of the hands of minors.

While I'm not a fan of Glenn Greenwald's CATO Institute report on the effects of decriminalization in Portugal, there are a few key outcomes worth considering. While drug use has gone up (albeit at similar rates as in neighboring countries), use among youth and problematic users (addicts) has declined. Further, the prevalence of HIV, other diseases associated with injection, and drug-related deaths have declined. The policies/programs that led to these positive positive outcomes were/are not nearly as expensive as prohibition.

If the War on Drugs isn't working, shouldn't we try something else? Are issues of public health best dealt with using the criminal law?
Click to expand...

Bringing it, as usual, like a BAWSE.

When are you coming down, Thomas? We've got room for you to stay a while, the weather's beautiful, and the fishing is about to turn on...
 
It's probably worth mentioning that weed impairs driving far less than alcohol. IF weed is more of a substitute than complement for alcohol, we might expect legalization to lead to fewer drunk drivers and more high drivers. The net effect could be a reduction in fatal accidents (depending on the relative strength of substitution and uptake of use). This story is potentially in line with the results in the paper relevant to the discussion in this thread; most of the states involved in the study have medicinal laws on the books, and fatal accidents decreased considerably from the second period to the third period. This result is also supported by this paper (link), which I haven't read, that finds that legalization of medicinal marijuana is associated with a 9% decline in traffic fatalities due to the substitution from alcohol to marijuana (looks like it's still just a working paper, although it's been cited 22 times...22 more times than the paper in the OP).
 
One Brow said:
For some people, breakfast cereal is addictive. Addicts have problems, but the problem is not usually what they are addicted to.
Click to expand...

Uh what the **** are you talking about?

Porn has been proven to change how the brain operates in relation to sexual stimulation. It' actually changing how your brain functions. That must be one powerful bowl of lucky charms to pull off that.
 
Imagine if you pooled all of that money you get from weed de-criminalizaion, and its funnelled into social programs that teach drug awareness, promote education, or help with health-care.


But ono drugz r bad mkay tobakko is legal and LUK WUTZ HAPPNin. We cnt trest Brarack Hussein Ossama
 
Beantown said:
Uh what the **** are you talking about?

Porn has been proven to change how the brain operates in relation to sexual stimulation. It' actually changing how your brain functions. That must be one powerful bowl of lucky charms to pull off that.
Click to expand...

Lucky charms doesn't operate with sexual stimulation, so of course it's not going to do the same.

But abusing that darn leprechaun will make you fat, and change how the body uses and stores sugars. Also how the brain operates with the elevated sugar count in the blood.

If your only argument is that it changes how the body works, then you're going to talk yourself into a closet.

But you keep fighting "the good fight"...keep those drapes closed up tight, and keep that religious channel open as the only way to the outside world...


Thinking things through for yourself surely is not your strong suit.
 
I'm going to preface this post by stating that I do not know for sure that I am correct, and I do not have any sources handy to link...but I'm going to tell you anyway. If I am wrong or misinformed, I am more than willing to admit my ignorance and be corrected.

I have heard/read (more than once) that in the early 20th century, hemp started to make headway as a useful fiber, and that Big Cotton was threatened enough to mount a propaganda campaign (including the film Reefer Madness) to protect their interests. They did so under the guise of public health, using marijuana as their angle, and managed to convince the country that marijuana was evil. Not just unhealthy - evil. Anyway, despite research that shows the valid medicinal value of marijuana, we have never been able to overcome the idea that it is somehow inherently immoral - even for legitimate medical purposes. We are stuck on 1930's logic (or lack thereof).

Like I said, I may be way off... it wouldn't be the first time.

BTW, as far as legalization creating a significant long term increase in users, I don't buy that at all. Yeah, some will. But I have never used it, and I know for a fact that if I decided I wanted to, I could get some within 20 minutes. It's ridiculously easy to obtain, and the risk is negligible. Those who want to do it, for the most part, already do.
 
ElRoach0 said:
Lucky charms doesn't operate with sexual stimulation, so of course it's not going to do the same.

But abusing that darn leprechaun will make you fat, and change how the body uses and stores sugars. Also how the brain operates with the elevated sugar count in the blood.

If your only argument is that it changes how the body works, then you're going to talk yourself into a closet.

But you keep fighting "the good fight"...keep those drapes closed up tight, and keep that religious channel open as the only way to the outside world...


Thinking things through for yourself surely is not your strong suit.
Click to expand...

Wait.

Wait.

It doesn't?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8
Bronco70 said:
I'm going to preface this post by stating that I do not know for sure that I am correct, and I do not have any sources handy to link...but I'm going to tell you anyway. If I am wrong or misinformed, I am more than willing to admit my ignorance and be corrected.

I have heard/read (more than once) that in the early 20th century, hemp started to make headway as a useful fiber, and that Big Cotton was threatened enough to mount a propaganda campaign (including the film Reefer Madness) to protect their interests. They did so under the guise of public health, using marijuana as their angle, and managed to convince the country that marijuana was evil. Not just unhealthy - evil. Anyway, despite research that shows the valid medicinal value of marijuana, we have never been able to overcome the idea that it is somehow inherently immoral - even for legitimate medical purposes. We are stuck on 1930's logic (or lack thereof).

Like I said, I may be way off... it wouldn't be the first time.

BTW, as far as legalization creating a significant long term increase in users, I don't buy that at all. Yeah, some will. But I have never used it, and I know for a fact that if I decided I wanted to, I could get some within 20 minutes. It's ridiculously easy to obtain, and the risk is negligible. Those who want to do it, for the most part, already do.
Click to expand...

I had heard it was the logging industry feeling threatened by marijuana being another way to make paper so the owner of some big time logging company started campaining against marijuana and paying off politicians.
 
I heard it was big tobacco did't want another product for people to smoke so they used their money and political power to demonize dat sticky.
 
Also, i believe that pharmacutical companies and companies that make alcoholic beverages stand to lose alot of money if marijuana is legalized.

I would not be surprised if some of those companies are doing what they can to stand in the way of legalization
 
Never drive further than an hour in a vehicle not baked tbh.

Er, I mean, when I have to drive for longer than an hour, I'm never not baked. Weird sentence fo sho.

Want some ****ing Lucky Charms now.
 
LazyD said:
Never drive further than an hour in a vehicle not baked tbh.

Er, I mean, when I have to drive for longer than an hour, I'm never not baked. Weird sentence fo sho.

Want some ****ing Lucky Charms now.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point.
 
Bronco70 said:
Using prohibition as an argument to keep marijuana illegal... was that just an academic exercise, Colton?
Click to expand...

You pretty much missed my point. I advise you to re-read my post. I was using prohibition to counter Nate's claim that more access will definitely not result in more usage. I think that's a completely false idea, so felt the need to debunk it.

As to whether marijuana should be legal or illegal, I've made my opinion on that known in previous threads and don't have time to rehash* it right now.


* pun intended, ha ha, aren't I funny
 
GVC said:
It's probably worth mentioning that weed impairs driving far less than alcohol. IF weed is more of a substitute than complement for alcohol...
Click to expand...

That's a huge if. Is there any evidence that that's the case? (I haven't run across anyone claiming that, but it's not something I've researched.)
 
colton said:
You pretty much missed my point. I advise you to re-read my post. I was using prohibition to counter Nate's claim that more access will definitely not result in more usage. I think that's a completely false idea, so felt the need to debunk it.

As to whether marijuana should be legal or illegal, I've made my opinion on that known in previous threads and don't have time to rehash* it right now.


* pun intended, ha ha, aren't I funny
Click to expand...

Yeah, I actually figured that out not too long after I wrote the post, but was too lazy to go back and delete.

My bad.


Sent from the JazzFanz app
 
colton said:
That's a huge if. Is there any evidence that that's the case? (I haven't run across anyone claiming that, but it's not something I've researched.)
Click to expand...

Good question. Are cigarettes a substitute for, or a complement to alcohol? Cigarettes are more of an analogue to joints really. So if people pick up smoking do they often stop drinking since smoking now took its place?
 
colton said:
You pretty much missed my point. I advise you to re-read my post. I was using prohibition to counter Nate's claim that more access will definitely not result in more usage. I think that's a completely false idea, so felt the need to debunk it.

As to whether marijuana should be legal or illegal, I've made my opinion on that known in previous threads and don't have time to rehash* it right now.


* pun intended, ha ha, aren't I funny
Click to expand...

*ain't
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top