By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - What would happen to the USA if we ended prohibition right now?

binary solo on 26 September 2013
snyps said:
DeadNotSleeping said:
More addicts, more accidents and a greater burden on the health care system. The average IQ will decrease, as will the number of eligible blood/organ donors. Criminal organization will choose to either compete with legitimate business to sell drugs, likely opting to cut corners on safety and sanitation during production to keep things competitively priced, or they will supplement the lost income by focusing on other methods at generating revenue. Racketeering and weapons smuggling may increase as a result. Average national life span will decrease. Number of infants born with birth defects or neurological conditions will rise--these persons may have the same difficulties moderating emotions as those born with FAS and so a hereditary predisposition towards violence may emerge in a greater number of families. Insurance premiums will rise in certain age groups. National averages for high school test scores will decrease. Border security will be increased to prevent smuggling outside of the country.


None of that happened after alchohol prohibition ended in 1933. What makes this different?

I would argue that it did happen after alcohol was legalised. Only now the drug pushers are fine upstanding business people intsead of back yard bootleggers. The total social cost of alcohol on western societies is massive.

If you think regulation and control will sort our the gangsters and killers you'd be wrong.

But you are right that the war on drugs is a waste of money. Problem is only social transformation can reduce the burden of drugs and alcohol on society. Govt can't do it via regulation.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Around the Network
g911turbo on 26 September 2013
snyps said:
DeadNotSleeping said:
More addicts, more accidents and a greater burden on the health care system. The average IQ will decrease, as will the number of eligible blood/organ donors. Criminal organization will choose to either compete with legitimate business to sell drugs, likely opting to cut corners on safety and sanitation during production to keep things competitively priced, or they will supplement the lost income by focusing on other methods at generating revenue. Racketeering and weapons smuggling may increase as a result. Average national life span will decrease. Number of infants born with birth defects or neurological conditions will rise--these persons may have the same difficulties moderating emotions as those born with FAS and so a hereditary predisposition towards violence may emerge in a greater number of families. Insurance premiums will rise in certain age groups. National averages for high school test scores will decrease. Border security will be increased to prevent smuggling outside of the country.


None of that happened after alchohol prohibition ended in 1933. What makes this different?

I agree, the longer post above is FULL of assumptions.  Pot is great start.  Legalize it already, and start taxing the shit out of it.



g911turbo on 26 September 2013
Kasz216 said:
snyps said:
Kasz216 said:
snyps said:
Kasz216 said:
snyps said:



The fee will go up over time through lobbyism to stop competition after a few groups gain a monopoly. The prices i made up for hard drugs were slip shot i admit.

how about this
heroin: $100 a gram
cocain: $100 an 8ball
crystal: $100 a teener



All depending on purity of coarse. Street prices basically. The illegal drug producers will prefer the legal market for obvious reasons. If people don't choose to go to a drug tavern they can go to the drug store and making prescription drugs available to the public would be necessary too. I think that's a good idea. Especially for medicines that cure.


Like i said, the problem with street prices is... they're inflated.  Street prices could eaisly be cut to keep the market afloat. 

Espiecally since there won't be nearly as much money spent to stop them from bringing drugs into the country / they could just grow produce the drugs here.

 


Why would the drug producers rather use the black market if that means less profit?


I don't get what you mean?  The price controls, just like Tobacco will be enforced via taxation.

Outside which they aren't going to let the current producers take part, so the columbian drug lords, and afganni warlords and such will be more then willing to take less money.



Wrong. The pretense here is legal prices with tax included will be the same as street prices. You act as though drug producers won't form legitimate companies to sell their products. Those columbians and afganies will become legitimate suppliers. Just admit ending prohibition will make america safer and lets end this ridiculous charade.


They won't though.  It's not like street prices are set in stone.  I've already shown street prices are greatly inflated.  If you tax things at street prices, street prices will become chepear.   Cocaine could get as cheap as 5-10 dollars for pure cocaine before it got anywhere near where it would be unprofitable for the cartels.


The US Government WILL NOT allow columbian organized crime and Afghanni Warlords to be producers.  They won't form companies because they won't be allowed in the markets because of who they are.  You really think the US government will allow illegal columbian gangs to sell in the United States?

 

and.... again, companies DON'T get tax money, that goes to the government.  So when the government sets the tax it will essentially be setting exactly how much profit they let drug companies make.   Which knowing the government, likely will be way below what would still be profitable on the street. 

Right now those drug lords do what is illegal because there is big money in it.  If it becomes legal for local producers to make it, yet stays illegale for certain groups, prices STILL go down.  

Now the risk:reward ratio for those illegal drug lords goes way down, making it less enticing to bother.  I think you underestimate how much RISK goes in getting those drugs across the border.



CDiablo on 26 September 2013

If drug use were completely legal It would have a massive effect on the global economy. Money that once was going to drug lords(both bad and if there are any good) will make its way to farmers (worldwide), the US government, US economy and global economy. Certain areas would see a massive financial boom as the illegal drug trade money gets moved into the hands of the working class economy. I would assume drug use would decrease among youth as it does where there is no age limit on drinking(there is less alcoholism for all ages in these areas). Less people would die because drugs would have guidelines. The US for profit prison industry would take a huge hit. Prisons in general would have a much smaller population. Gang violence would drop quite a bit as there is no territory to have to sell product. I think other petty crimes such as robbery and home invasion would rise as criminals look for a way for fast cash. Police and other law agencies would have a massive amount of more resources at their disposal. IMO the trade off is somewhere around 85% positive 15%negative effect if this happened.



Getting an XBOX One for me is like being in a bad relationship but staying together because we have kids. XBone we have 20000+ achievement points, 2+ years of XBL Gold and 20000+ MS points. I think its best we stay together if only for the MS points.

Nintendo Treehouse is what happens when a publisher is confident and proud of its games and doesn't need to show CGI lies for five minutes.

-Jim Sterling

g911turbo on 26 September 2013
binary solo said:
None of that happened after alchohol prohibition ended in 1933. What makes this different?

I would argue that it did happen after alcohol was legalised. Only now the drug pushers are fine upstanding business people intsead of back yard bootleggers. The total social cost of alcohol on western societies is massive.

If you think regulation and control will sort our the gangsters and killers you'd be wrong.

But you are right that the war on drugs is a waste of money. Problem is only social transformation can reduce the burden of drugs and alcohol on society. Govt can't do it via regulation.


I personally think the government should stay out of what only involves the person making the decision.

For example: Drink.  Fine.  Drink and drive (putting OTHERS in danger) / harsh penalty.  With that, I think the limits in some of these states are rediculous (too low).



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 26 September 2013
g911turbo said:
Kasz216 said:
snyps said:


They won't though.  It's not like street prices are set in stone.  I've already shown street prices are greatly inflated.  If you tax things at street prices, street prices will become chepear.   Cocaine could get as cheap as 5-10 dollars for pure cocaine before it got anywhere near where it would be unprofitable for the cartels.


The US Government WILL NOT allow columbian organized crime and Afghanni Warlords to be producers.  They won't form companies because they won't be allowed in the markets because of who they are.  You really think the US government will allow illegal columbian gangs to sell in the United States?

 

and.... again, companies DON'T get tax money, that goes to the government.  So when the government sets the tax it will essentially be setting exactly how much profit they let drug companies make.   Which knowing the government, likely will be way below what would still be profitable on the street. 

Right now those drug lords do what is illegal because there is big money in it.  If it becomes legal for local producers to make it, yet stays illegale for certain groups, prices STILL go down.  

Now the risk:reward ratio for those illegal drug lords goes way down, making it less enticing to bother.  I think you underestimate how much RISK goes in getting those drugs across the border.


There is essentially no risk for the producers... or even the gangs that transport the drugs.

Where there is risk, is for the drug mules.

These people are already in a position to where they aren't really paid that much, and do what they do for desperate reasons.



g911turbo on 26 September 2013
Kasz216 said:

There is essentially no risk for the producers... or even the gangs that transport the drugs.

Where there is risk, is for the drug mules.

These people are already in a position to where they aren't really paid that much, and do what they do for desperate reasons.

No risk.  Come on man. 



ArnoldRimmer on 26 September 2013

Drug prohibition will sooner or later end anyway.

If anything, it's a matter of time. The elder people, whose drug experience was always exclusively alcohol, will be dying out. Younger generations have more experience, their knowledge isn't limited to "Reefer madness"-style propaganda. They've either tried out other drugs themselves, they know many people who did, or they will at least understand that prohibiting drugs is actually the worst solution to solving "the drug problem".



weaveworld on 26 September 2013

How about starting a war on poverty.



snyps on 26 September 2013
Kasz216 said:
snyps said:


Wrong. The pretense here is legal prices with tax included will be the same as street prices. You act as though drug producers won't form legitimate companies to sell their products. Those columbians and afganies will become legitimate suppliers. Just admit ending prohibition will make america safer and lets end this ridiculous charade.


They won't though.  It's not like street prices are set in stone.  I've already shown street prices are greatly inflated.  If you tax things at street prices, street prices will become chepear.   Cocaine could get as cheap as 5-10 dollars for pure cocaine before it got anywhere near where it would be unprofitable for the cartels.


The US Government WILL NOT allow columbian organized crime and Afghanni Warlords to be producers.  They won't form companies because they won't be allowed in the markets because of who they are.  You really think the US government will allow illegal columbian gangs to sell in the United States?

 

and.... again, companies DON'T get tax money, that goes to the government.  So when the government sets the tax it will essentially be setting exactly how much profit they let drug companies make.   Which knowing the government, likely will be way below what would still be profitable on the street. 

 

The market will determine the price.  That's capitalism.  Drug stores will be competitive.  Let's assume your reasoning on inflated prices is correct.  It won't change the supply and demand effect on pricing.  Is it cheaper to buy drugs illegaly or legaly in Amsterdam?   Sure if some one wants to lower their price and sell to a local street dealer they can.  But at the very top of this chain are a bunch of business professionals.  Do they want to sneak around and kill their way to profits or set up an LLC and use federal express. 

 

Why?  Why can't Columbians and Afghanies sell to the US?  Why do you call the Columbian Gangs "illegal"?

 

Look at the way amsterdam handled their "heroin alley".  They don't have a black market of any consequence.   The US government will collect sales tax.  Maybe decades from now they will create a BS safety/edu tax long after the black markets are vanguished.  I just don't see where you are getting your opinion that a legal market isn't going to stamp out the illegal market.  Do you have examples of this happening in history anywhere? 

I'll assume you've seen breaking bad & scarface, just for fun, imagine what Walter White, Gustavo Fring, or Tony Montana would do in real life is prohibition ended... don't kid yourself. They'd be at the secretary of state's office signing a business license faster than you can say "los pollos hermanos".