Legalizing Drugs as Solution to Crime?

Remove all ads!

Not that I had this debate in mind, but I find the name of my own 2 weeks old daughter, Mariana, strikingly ironic in this context.

 

That is the name of my mother.

 

Here's a new bit of analysis on the "legalization will stimulate the economy" argument that, I admit, I find pretty hard to argue with. Though I still think MJ should be legalized, this angle certainly makes the whole idea a little less appealing for me.

Thoughts?

 

It is hard to argue with. Of course, it's been so long since I've got baked that the legalization of MJ means very little to me.

But I never thought about it in the terms that is laid out in that article. The money changing hands in the illicit MJ market is money that is in the economy. If MJ became legal and sold for (perhaps significantly) less than it is currently selling for (and that almost certainly seems to be true), it would actually take money out of the economy.

EDIT: I agree with BTA that the criminals would move on to some other illicit activity - probably some other drug that would still be illegal. That doesn't change the fact that if less money is spent on MJ, legalization would not stimulate the economy.

 

BTA, I only care insofar as it provides a "pro" to the legalization argument, and not necessarily as an economic stimulus per se, but as a net positive* for the economy in general. I had thought that the regulation and legal sale would generate significant revenue through sales, American jobs through cultivation and production, and decent tax revenue. But this article certainly brings to light angles I hadn't thought of.

* Heh, misspelled that "potitive" the first time. Awesome.

 

Yes, well it would give criminals less money. Unless, you are looking for a Narco economy, then I suppose it would give drug dealers less money to spend. However, it would give the average consumer more money to spend on other things.

I. thought the argument was poor. First off, 10 billion dollars is 10 billion dollars. That's a lot. So what if it's only 1/10 of one percent? I mean this isn't Finland, or wherever, where Nokia is like 15 percent of the GDP.

2. Since when does the US ever give a flip about international treaties? That's a laugh.

3. Well, I'm not quite sure what the guy is arguing with this one. Yeah, drugs would be cheaper . Of course, drug dealers charge a lot. A lot of them get killed in the process of smuggling it. Of course, a lot of it would be home-grown rather than "imported" as it is currently. The idea is to get money away from criminals to make it harder for them to buy guns, prostitutes, taking out contracts to kill each other, whatever.

4. Well, of course the price would drop. So what? No one except the drug dealers know the overhead. I mean how much do you pay hired thugs to execute (no pun intended) and manage your business plan? It's an illegal business, which means that overhead and expenses are not a managaed problem. If the price goes up, what can consumers do about it? Call the BBB? They steal more, or prostitute themselves more.

5. I'd like to see his source on this. What did he do, take a survey? "Hello. I'm doing a survey, I want to know how often you consume your illegal drugs. How much of your monthly imcome do set aside for illegal drugs? Have you cut down because of the economy? Are you a casual user, like for special occassions, like your mom's birthday? Or are you a REAL stoner? Do you have a Tommy Chong action figure?"

Is this guy for real?

 

If MJ was legal it would be sold by drug companies -- there would be a huge increase in price for twenty years until all the patent issues could be worked out. Then, and only then, would generic MJ be available at prices that anyone could afford.

 

Is there anything about MJ that's actually patentable (or at least patentable enough to an extent that would prohibit anyone else from growing and selling it)?

 

Splunge - I took T2's comment to be sarcastic. Obviously, you cannot patent the actual plant, but even if it were legalized, I would imagine that not everyone would be able to grow and sell as much as they liked. It would be regulated, just like the tobacco industry is regulated. JR Reynolds doesn't buy tobacco from everywhere, but only from trusted suppliers.

 

That occured to me as well, but normally I'm better at picking up on T2's humour, so I though he was actually being serious, and knew more about patent law than I do (which wouldn't be hard, since my knowledge in that area is next to ziltch). But then again, I didn't get a good sleep last night, so I'm even more dense today than usual.

 

Bad me, I should have used a smiley.

Actually I was semi-serious because purification, processing, and packaging systems could be patented -- those could actually be held by tobacco companies and may be expired. I think you would still find the 'home grown' variety less expensive for a while.

 

Also it would not be 20 years - all pharmaceutically related patents are good for only 7 years, and after that generics become available.

 

The point that legalization of cannabis would violate international treaties is weak, in particular in light of the US so far having been about the most enthusiastic proponent of harsher prohibition, so enthusiastic in fact that disagreement with the US position was met with intense US pressure. The Netherlands in particular have gotten under intense US pressure for legalizing marijuana. What I want to say is that the 'international trouble' apparently is an aspect the US firmly have in their own hands. The reference to international treaties, as Chandos rightly pointed out, not only rings hollow. It is obviously merely a second tier support argument to underline the case for prohibition. The real argument is something else. Generally, such arguments being used (or rather having to be used) make me suspicious of the merit of the case generally.

Personally I don't think that legalization of marijuana is such a bad idea. The US is certainly overreacting on prohibition. The liberal Dutch have legalized marijuana. In Germany possession of small quantities is already not being punished, which means it is de facto being tolerated. There is no point in putting kids into the criminal system for the grave crime of wanting to smoke a joint. Prosecutors see that, and they see what else they have on their hands. Smoking cannabis is a victimless crime, generally speaking, and compares favorably to crimes like theft, fraud, larceny or assault, or worse. It is also about setting priorities with limited resources.

The illegality is in fact what can make possession of cannabis a crime with a victim. Like when a gang violently takes over someone's business. A crime among criminals is still a crime. Also, we have had cases in Saxonia recently, where people were treated for lead poisoning, showing very rare symptoms. The reason was that dealers added lead to the marijuana to make it heavier to exact a higher price.

Stuff like that makes me think that legalization would allow to establish quality standards, so that problems originating from the product can be addressed through administrative action (as with food, drug and health controls), and if necessary be settled in court. Also, illegality would no longer be a disincentive to seek police protection against goons taking over your business, or in reverse, legality would eliminate the need to arm and prepare yourself for that possibility. Marijuana dealers could go to the police if they have been robbed. Customers could sue their dealers if they have been dealt trash or worse - they could go to court if someone doesn't pay his bills. The state could tax marijuana. It no longer would be a hassle to prescribe medical marijuana to people in pain (just think of the situation right now in the US) and so forth. There are serious benefits to legalization.