The Prospects for Global Drug Legalization
Foreign Policy (generally an excellent publication despite occasional missteps like the Robert Reich article) has a great cover article (sub required) by Drug Policy Alliance executive director Ethan Nadelman arguing for global drug legalization. Just a few excerpts below:
Prohibition has failed—again. Instead of treating the demand for illegal drugs as a market, and addicts as patients, policymakers the world over have boosted the profits of drug lords and fostered narcostates that would frighten Al Capone. Finally, a smarter drug control regime that values reality over rhetoric is rising to replace the "war" on drugs. …
Global drug prohibition is clearly a costly disaster. The United Nations has estimated the value of the global market in illicit drugs at $400 billion, or 6 percent of global trade. The extraordinary profits available to those willing to assume the risks enrich criminals, terrorists, violent political insurgents, and corrupt politicians and governments. Many cities, states, and even countries in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia are reminiscent of Chicago under Al Capone—times 50. By bringing the market for drugs out into the open, legalization would radically change all that for the better.
More importantly, legalization would strip addiction down to what it really is: a health issue. Most people who use drugs are like the responsible alcohol consumer, causing no harm to themselves or anyone else. They would no longer be the state's business. But legalization would also benefit those who struggle with drugs by reducing the risks of overdose and disease associated with unregulated products, eliminating the need to obtain drugs from dangerous criminal markets, and allowing addiction problems to be treated as medical rather than criminal problems.
No one knows how much governments spend collectively on failing drug war policies, but it's probably at least $100 billion a year, with federal, state, and local governments in the United States accounting for almost half the total. Add to that the tens of billions of dollars to be gained annually in tax revenues from the sale of legalized drugs. Now imagine if just a third of that total were committed to reducing drug-related disease and addiction. Virtually everyone, except those who profit or gain politically from the current system, would benefit.
Some say legalization is immoral. That's nonsense, unless one believes there is some principled basis for discriminating against people based solely on what they put into their bodies, absent harm to others. Others say legalization would open the floodgates to huge increases in drug abuse. They forget that we already live in a world in which psychoactive drugs of all sorts are readily available—and in which people too poor to buy drugs resort to sniffing gasoline, glue, and other industrial products, which can be more harmful than any drug. No, the greatest downside to legalization may well be the fact that the legal markets would fall into the hands of the powerful alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies. Still, legalization is a far more pragmatic option than living with the corruption, violence, and organized crime of the current system. …
The global war on drugs persists in part because so many people fail to distinguish between the harms of drug abuse and the harms of prohibition. Legalization forces that distinction to the forefront. The opium problem in Afghanistan is primarily a prohibition problem, not a drug problem. The same is true of the narcoviolence and corruption that has afflicted Latin America and the Caribbean for almost three decades—and that now threatens Africa. Governments can arrest and kill drug lord after drug lord, but the ultimate solution is a structural one, not a prosecutorial one. Few people doubt any longer that the war on drugs is lost, but courage and vision are needed to transcend the ignorance, fear, and vested interests that sustain it.
Disclosure: I send in $35 per year as a membership fee to the Drug Policy Alliance. I think I'm current on my membership in the Marijuana Policy Project too.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Amen indeed. I put the over/under on number of times this article will be cited by a congressman, senator, or government official, at right abooooouuuuuut zero.
"No, the greatest downside to legalization may well be the fact that the legal markets would fall into the hands of the powerful alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies."
Boo! Big corporate conglomerates!
Ha! Scared ya, didn't I?
*Why's this so bad?*
Others say legalization would open the floodgates to huge increases in drug abuse.
IMO, the drug law reform movement needs to stop pretending that legalizing drugs would not lead to a lot more use and therefore a lot more abuse. It comes across as dishonest (or at the very least shows quite a bit of denial) to say otherwise and hurts the movement as a whole.
Admit that legalizing drugs will cause more drug abuse, and then state your case as to why it would be worth it to legalize drugs anyway.
"No, the greatest downside to legalization may well be the fact that the legal markets would fall into the hands of the powerful alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies."
If Miller Brewing or Elli-Lilly made marijuana legally, I bet its quality (or at least consistency) would improve quite a bit.
Oh good call Shirt.
Let's see on the one hand we have organizations like the FARC, Taliban, and Mafia. On the other, we have Philip Morris, Anheuser Busch, and Pfizer. Oh yeah, nothing but downside there.
Few politicians have the guts to say this, especially when the various special interest groups - Religious Crusaders, Police Agencies, grandstanding prosecutors, etc - will howl that the proponents of legalization are "soft on crime" or "endangering our children".
These groups will deliberately conflate the harm of drug abuse and the harm of prohibition to further their ends.
As for Latin America, it is easier for people to assume that there is something wrong with Latin Americans than accept that our policies are harming them. If the US Government had deliberately set out to destabilize the governments of Latin America, they could not have done it more thoroughly than their current drug policies.
Dan T is right. By completely denying that legalization would increase use and abuse, Nadelman appears less credible. Some respectable people are deterred just because drugs are illegal, and legalization almost by definition would increase availability (even if they're "widely available" now--at venues where some people won't go).
Nadelman should stick to the point that the social harms and lost lives from prohibition exceed those we would see from legalization, even if there is some spike in drug use. Alcohol legalization is a persuasive precedent.
I don't know about y'all, but I'm really tired of Miller Brewing/Anheiser Busch drive-by shootings. God forbid that entities with experience responsibly producuing and distributing legal intoxicants would get involved with cocaine, marijuana, etc.
There would probably be addicts with drug legalization, perhaps more. But whats important is the typical addict will change.
Before drug prohibition, the typical addict was a middle-class housewife. No the typical addict is a violent criminal that has to commit crimes to feed their habit due to prohibition. I don't know about you all, but I'd definitely prefer the former over the latter.
Dan T has a real point here in that there probably will be more drug use.
The problem with the proponents of legalization raising it, is that the opponents will fix on that issue and use it scream down all other arguments.
Tactically, it is better to let the opponents of legalization raqise it and make THEM justify why the current policies do less harm.
Except that countries who have started decriminalization have fund pretty much the opposite. The Netherlands, for example, found that marijuana use spiked suddenly (as people here seem to expect) right after legalization, but shortly after there was a rapid fall off to a use-rate just slightly higher than pre-legalization levels.
The idea that there would be hordes of new addicts that are being held back solely by legal consequences is simply not supported by evidence, since, as the article points out, most people who want to get high generally already find a way to do so.
If Miller Brewing or Elli-Lilly made marijuana legally, I bet its quality (or at least consistency) would improve quite a bit.
i dunno man, the idea of a strain of sweet stank nyc sour diesel in the hands of people who make MILLER BEER is pretty harrowing.
if anything they'd make it weaker so you'd need to smoke more to get basted.
of course totally legal people would go to making tinctures and food products with it because the price would drop so readily. and because that's an easy way to get customers who don't want to smoke anything (or smell like smoke) but still want to get lit up a way to do so.
Dan T.,I'm not sure it would increase use.The end of the ban on alcohol did not increase the consumption of booze.As a matter of fact it rid the country of thousands of deaths a year caused by black market alcohol.Many drug deaths now are caused by additives to increaase profit.
I don't deny that legalization will increase drug use. I contend that the social costs of legalization of ALLdrugs would be miniscule to the havoc that prohibition engenders. I don't see how aa informed, rational person would disagree. Remember Kathryn Johnston!
of course totally legal people would go to making tinctures and food products with it because the price would drop so readily. and because that's an easy way to get customers who don't want to smoke anything (or smell like smoke) but still want to get lit up a way to do so.
Well, there'd probably also be whatever the pot version of a microbrew would be.
I won't concede all of Dan T's point. I will concede that drug use will increase. I will further concede that as a result of increased drug use/availability, the number of people who abuse drugs will increase. However, I believe that the number of people abusing drugs at any one time will decrease. Because it won't be necessary to consort with criminals, and otherwise become removed from support structures (friends, family, even job) addicts will recover much quicker.
If Miller Brewing or Elli-Lilly made marijuana legally, I bet its quality (or at least consistency) would improve quite a bit.
And you assume this because Miller's beer is so much better than... what?
I long for the day when I can pick up a joint and see the "born on" date stamped right on it. Not that I would smoke it or anything...
And you assume this because Miller's beer is so much better than... what?
Its better than bathtub gin.
Piss?
The use of certain drugs cause an increase in health risks to those who might use prohibited drugs. Possible immediate detrimental health effects include altered awareness, reduced motor control, poisoning, and death by overdose. Prohibited drugs may also detrimentally impact broader long term measures of health and well being such as educational performance, standard-of-living, and incidence of depression.
Psychoactive substances typically bear a substantial 'cost to society'. Social costs may take numerous forms, for example short- and long-term healthcare provision; harm reduction programs; addiction treatment; public nuisance and third party damage; absence from work and lost productivity; crime committed by drug users while 'under the influence'; and, often primarily, costs associated with identifying/ arresting/ prosecuting/ incarcerating/ reintegrating into society people involved in the drug trade
Consciously altering one's mind or state of consciousness is morally unjustifiable, and or against God's will as the creator of the human mind.
"Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine. They have harps and lyres at their banquets, tambourines and flutes and wine, but they have no regard for the deeds of the Lord, no respect for the work of his hands".
Except that countries who have started decriminalization have fund pretty much the opposite. The Netherlands, for example, found that marijuana use spiked suddenly (as people here seem to expect) right after legalization, but shortly after there was a rapid fall off to a use-rate just slightly higher than pre-legalization levels.
A good point, but marijuana is not known as being a particularly dangerous or addictive drug.
I mean, it's worth noting that Holland has not legalized harder drugs.
I was thinking the same thing, Warren. Short term and long term effects would also differ due to the change in social stigma about drug use.
New drug abusers might also end up being people who currently abuse alcohol, so an overall effect may be smaller.
And you assume this because Miller's beer is so much better than... what?
Meister Brau? (Watered down Miller, as if Miller is so strong)
Well, I have never tasted bathtub gin, but home made beer is pretty good. Much better than Miller or Bud or Coors.
I mean, it's worth noting that Holland has not legalized harder drugs.
Thats true, but you used to be able to buy cocaine and heroin over the counter in this country until 1914. Society didn't collapse because of this. As I said before there were addicts, but they did not have to commit crimes to feed their habit.
The point is not that Miller makes good beer (it doesn't.) The point is that Miller makes the beer *that it plans to make* in a consistent and reliable way.
A good point, but marijuana is not known as being a particularly dangerous or addictive drug.
New varieties are not the stuff of the sixties, they have 1000s of times more of the toxin THC, and are stronger than cocaine.
Shirt, Cesar, Warren,
I think its telling that the potentially *worst* done side to legalization is that it would fall into the hands of big business. As you point out this isn't really bad at all, compared to drugs' production by criminals. If the worst downside is actually an upside, how bad can legalization be?
Dan T.,
While drug use may rise under legalization, I don't believe that necessitates an increase in abuse. How many addicts today don't seek treatment for fear of being arrested? Even so, I've read that only 15% of addicts could get treatment even if they did try and get it. This is one (of many) of the problems with the War on Drugs, it has funneled money into punishing addicts, not helping them.
Drug abuse should be recognized for what it is, a health issue, not a criminal issue.
The point is not that Miller makes good beer (it doesn't.) The point is that Miller makes the beer *that it plans to make* in a consistent and reliable way.
Correct. One of the better arguments for legalizing harder drugs like heroin is that users would be able to know exactly what they're getting so there will be fewer accidental overdoses and drugs cut with junk.
Whatever you think about Miller beer, when you open one you know it will be the same as the last one you drank.
New varieties are not the stuff of the sixties, they have 1000s of times more of the toxin THC, and are stronger than cocaine.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
When you can find one single person who has ever died from THC poisoning, you let us know.
Steven,
Your God also punishes liars.
Dan T.,
While drug use may rise under legalization, I don't believe that necessitates an increase in abuse. How many addicts today don't seek treatment for fear of being arrested? Even so, I've read that only 15% of addicts could get treatment even if they did try and get it. This is one (of many) of the problems with the War on Drugs, it has funneled money into punishing addicts, not helping them.
A fair point. But is it not true that the mostly commonly used recreational drugs in America also happen to be the legal ones (alcohol, tobacco, and don't forget caffeine)?
Consider that legalization in many people's minds equals social acceptance. Most casual drinkers don't consider themselves "drug users". I wonder if herion were legal if many more people would try it because the stigma of illegality would no longer be there?
Drug manufacturing in the hands of Anheuser-Busch and Miller??
I say the Super-Bowl ads alone are worth it! Everything else is just icing on the cake.
New varieties are not the stuff of the sixties, they have 1000s of times more of the toxin THC, and are stronger than cocaine.
Show me one person who's overdosed on weed and I'll show you 100,000 who've died of alcohol poisoning.
If you can even dredge up a single THC overdose, which I doubt.
Oops, Episiarch beat me to it.
Steven
Consciously altering one's mind or state of consciousness is morally unjustifiable, and or against God's will as the creator of the human mind.
In my readings of various theist philosophers, they have all spoken of prayer as "altering one's state of consciousness".
Are you proposing banning prayer?
My guess is that usage would only go up slightly. I have never used drugs, and probably wouldn't if legal. Maybe try a little pot, I don't know. But everyone I know who does use couldn't give two sh*ts whether they're legal or not. No one I know who doesn't use seems chomping at the bit to try them out as soon as they hit Walgreens.
The problem is the damn bleeding hearts who ruin everything. When people are getting addicted to heroine and cocaine the rest of us are going to be paying for it.
Framing addiction as a "health issue" gets you the worst of all possible worlds.
Legalize all hard drugs and put a label on them "This shit is really good, but get addicted and you're on your own."
Let's stay on planet Earth here - whatever happens in the arena of global drug policy over the next few decades there is absolutely no way that legitmate corporations are going to begin selling herion, meth or cocaine. Probably not marijuana either.
If drug legalization would occur (faster please), it does seem likely that the number of users of the formerly prohibited substances would increase somewhat. As to the amount of the increase, who can say. Personally, I wouldn't expect much of an increase as most folks who currently abstain do so for moral and/or health/addiction reasons.
With that said, the actual total number of drug users will change very little with legalization. Typically speaking, almost all prohibited drug users are a sub-set of legal drug users, the legal drug being alcohol. Many of us make the mistake of treating alcohol users as separate people from illicit drug users. For the most part they are one and the same. Of all the illicit drug users I've known over the years, I can't recall any that didn't consume alcohol.
In short, with drug legalization, some percentage of alcohol consumers will broaden their menu and most likely add pot to the mix. Not a lot to fear as far as I can tell.
The problem is the damn bleeding hearts who ruin everything. When people are getting addicted to heroine and cocaine the rest of us are going to be paying for it.
Chalupa, believe it or not its possible for a person to be hooked on drugs and not go onto welfare or public assistance. Some very famous and successful people have been functional addicts. Siegmund Freud comes to mind. Today, of course, we'd throw him in prison.
I have seen no evidence for this. Illegal narcotics are so readily available today that it's absurd to think that prohibition reduces usage. People who are going to do drugs are going to do drugs, regardless of their legality.
But I will concede your point, as the possibility of casual narcotic use may indeed rise. But so what? The problem with narcotics is not druggies, but violence. I would gladly trade a few more stoned out junkies for the near complete elimination of gangland violence. Legal prostitution in Nevada is free from violence (and disease). Legal gambling on reservations is free from violence. Legal alcohol virtually everywhere is free from violence. Legalized narcotics would also be free from violence.
The point is that Miller makes the beer *that it plans to make* in a consistent and reliable way.
to be sure, though i don't know what they would do regarding strength. most of the "good stuff" is too strong to smoke a whole .5 - 1.0 grams of in one sitting for one person, so the pack sales would either have to be severely modified (perhaps blended with tobacco?) in strength or the way they're sold would have to be changed (a ginormous filter?)
seeing as pot cultivation is basically a medium-scale, illegal underground microbrew market as it is, it would be interesting beyond all else to see what would happen. would an aboveground taxonomy be created to track strains and types? would a genotype database be created to track strains? would large companies try to trademark strains? (possibly?)
this is all musing beyond the huge benefit of not having a black market to feed criminality, of course.
"...they are inflamed with wine."
If the government wants to prohibit my cab, they'll have to pry it out of my cold dead hands.
The problem with trying to get someone into rehab is they might say, "no, no, no."
Dan,
What about opium and coca, milder forms of the same drugs?
When alcohol prohibition was in effect, bathtub gin and hard alcohols were in vogue, because if you were going to get in trouble for drinking, you might as well get the best value for the risk, leading to riskier behavior. When prohibition was lifted, harder alcohols reduced drastically in preference to low alcohol beer. Beer is one of the most widely consumed drugs in the world, to little affect in total. Why all this doomsday scenarios that meth, heroin and crack addicts will destroy society? Why not accept the fact that while some people abuse drugs, its much better to society in general to legalize drugs and reduce the associated criminal activity which tends to be much more insidious than the occansional OD'er.
"A fair point. But is it not true that the mostly commonly used recreational drugs in America also happen to be the legal ones (alcohol, tobacco, and don't forget caffeine)?
Consider that legalization in many people's minds equals social acceptance. Most casual drinkers don't consider themselves "drug users". I wonder if herion were legal if many more people would try it because the stigma of illegality would no longer be there?"
Dan T.,
The federal law requires that all cigarette packs and alcoholic beverage have a Surgeon General's warning. Why couldn't the same thing be done with currently illicit drugs?
The DEA's current rhetoric has people like Steven screaming that THC is toxic. The Merk Index, 12th edition, lists the mean lethal dose of THC in lab rats as 1270 mg/kg for males and 730 mg/kg for female. This equates to 87 g and 50 g for a 150 lb male and female human adult, respectively. Even the strongest marijuana contains at most 20% THC. Considering a gram of marijuana can last a once-a-day smoker about a week, a female smoker would inhale only 0.4% of a lethal dose over an entire week. While its true that animal testing probably can't be perfectly scaled to humans, it can't be that off. I mean, its been accurate enough to okay just about every drug and medical procedure that come about in the last century.
Steven:
So... Jesus turned water into wine... you want to do the opposite... logically that makes you...
Holy crap! You're the anti-Christ!
Nephilium
"Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more (Proverbs 31:06-07)
From the excerpt: unless one believes there is some principled basis for discriminating against people based solely on what they put into their bodies, absent harm to others
The problem is, vast numbers of people believe precisely that. Probably a huge majority, in fact. I agree with legalization 100% but I just don't see it happening.
I think I'm current on my membership in the Marijuana Policy Project too.
Mr. Bailey, if you donate a few hundred more dollars to MPP, maybe you and I will run into each other at one of the annual benefit parties at the Playboy Mansion every spring.
Dan,
I agree that no Pharmaceutical companies are probably going to be marketing Cocaine, Heroin, or Marijuana directly. However, legalization of recreational drugs beyond the big three (Alcohol, Nicotine, Caffeine) will open up a huge new market for synthetic designer recreational substances, which I am sure Big Pharma will be more than happy to provide.
Legalization of cannabinoids and opiates will make it much easier to do research in these areas, due to loosening of regulatory guidelines that would have to accompany the declassification of previously Class I substances that would increase access and make human testing and FDA approval a bit easier. I would imagine cannabinoid research to be especially fertile ground for experimentation.
See. God says so. It's in "THE BIBLE". You abominable shellfish eaters are next.
Steven, quoting scripture does not a credible argument make. In my not so humble opinion, it's bovine excrement.
BTW, positive experiences with mind/mood altering substances are not unheard of. In fact, LSD was good for me.
dhex,
Packagers of brewing hops currently are capable of testing lots for their alpha acid percentage and labelling all of the compressed, formed pellets that come from that "lot" (no idea how they define that term, but I'm sure they do somehow. Probably based on both varietal of plant and location grown.) It shouldn't be that different from that.
Alternatively, it could be like grapefruit juice. They would concentrate it to a reasanbly uniform level, then dilute it back out to a chosen concentration with even greater precision. Then it could all be labelled as the same amount of active.
We can do it. We have the technology. 😉
Wow. If Steven did not exist we would have to invent him.
First off, I'd like to note that it's fantastic news for a periodical such as Foreign Policy to permit a cover advocating the end of drug prohibition. That's progress.
Secondly, the author of the article, which I read in it's entirety last week, seems convinced that drug prohibition will end outside of the US first; the US has essentially foisted its own policies upon the rest of the world, and now all of the impetus for change originates far from our borders. Europe and Latin America seem like plausible places to start. If a few places like Mexico, Switzerland, or the Netherlands lead the way here, it's possible that a trend may start. Full legalization could spread from Mexico down to Central and South America, just as Dutch and Swiss legalization could spread across the Continent and even to the UK.
We'll see. There is reason, even if only slight, to be optimistic.
To Dan T.,
A fair point. But is it not true that the mostly commonly used recreational drugs in America also happen to be the legal ones (alcohol, tobacco, and don't forget caffeine)?
Consider that legalization in many people's minds equals social acceptance. Most casual drinkers don't consider themselves "drug users". I wonder if herion were legal if many more people would try it because the stigma of illegality would no longer be there?
While I agree with your overall point that anti-prohibitionists should not center their arguments around potential post-prohibition drug abuse levels, there is reason to be optimistic even here.
You say that the most commonly used drugs today are the legal ones. But I say to you: Are these drugs heavily used today because they are legal, or are they legal because they are and were heavily used? Alcohol and tobacco consumption have strong traditions amongst the sorts of people who vote in the Halls of Congress - namely persons of European descent. No surprise then that alcohol and tobacco should remain legal and popular (well, legal most of the time anyways), whereas drugs popular with natives (marijuana) and other minorities should be banned. Remember that drug prohibition was in the 19-teens, when asians, latinos, and blacks were still smaller in number and largely disenfranchised.
Additionally, the theory that legalization equals social acceptance would seem to be easily and decisively trumped by any attempt to light up a cigarette within talking distance of another person in California. You would probably get a friendlier reaction from your interlocutors by lighting up a joint.
As to the level of actual abuse that might follow after an end to prohibition, well, we can of course only speculate. But why not use the examples of the end of marijuana prohibition in the Netherlands and the end of alcohol prohibition in the US and Sweden? Not many other examples exist of societies ending prohibition of psychoactive substances, and the few examples we do have seem to suggest that use will either be about the same or even fall - I seem to recall Dr. Friedman saying that alcohol use fell after the end of prohibition. I don't have the links to backup that assertion, but my point is simply that it is not a forgone conclusion that drug abuse will indeed rise, so there is no reason for us to concede the point to the prohibitionists. We may acknowledge that it is indeed a legitimate risk, and our argument does of course still stand in the face of that risk, but we should mention that abuse levels may, in fact, not rise or at least not my much.
I find it quite likely that big pharma would be interested in producing heroin and cocaine. It does, after all, have an historical precedent. "Heroin" started out as a Bayer trademark.
They also have recognised medical uses regardles of what the politicos have done with them.
Getting heroin, meth and cocaine into industrial production with quality control, purity, safety and hygeine procedures would produce obvious benefits.
Now as to retail sale and distribution I can't say. I'll leave that to marketing types to muse upon. But i can't imagine that it would be that much different than pre-1914 methods.
I agree with dhex though that marijuana will like remain a small "microbrew" type operation.
But part of the reason for that is the fact that if home cultivation is permitted you will see a lot of that.
I'd like to get everyone's opinion on the following quote from Sen. Moynihan on the issue of drug legalization:
"We are required to choose between a crime problem and a public heath problem."
I've always liked this quote because I think it's true. Don't get me wrong, as an adherent to lifestyle libertarianism on principle I think what one does to one's body is one's business alone.
However, it strikes me that certainly that if drugs were legal then more people would do them (I mean, I'll be honest, I love to drink, and if heroin were legal I'd love to try it, but as it's illegal I honestly don't seek it out). The more that do them the more addicts we would have. And addiction is a very sad and destructive thing.
Now, perhaps in this case, like some others I can think of, I'd rather be free with a little more misery than unfree and secure. And perhaps the misery that would result from higher levels of addiction would not match the misery caused by our current Prohibition measures. But I'm not sure we would not face tough facts either way.
Oh, and there's no way the major pharmaceutical, alcohol, or tobacco companies would ever touch any newly legalized recreational drugs.
Even if legal, their core customers would never accept drugs like marijuana, heroin, cocaine, et al to be legitimate. The feelings people have towards these drugs wouldn't end over night, and anyone associated with them would likely be marginalized for quite some time.
That's my prediction, anyways. Companies would of course sell them, maybe even publicly traded ones, and that's all that we need to put sufficient accountability in the system - to standardize the amount of active ingredients in the doses, to ensure that no harmful additives are inside.
Much like the Muslim who denounces Islamo-fascists, I feel that, as a libertarian Christian, I must jump in and distance myself from the likes of Steven. Martin Luther developed the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms (the heavenly kingdom and the earthly kingdom) which argued that the secular government should stay out of God's business. He argued this in part because he recognized that the government might incorrectly interpret God's law, and that if it did so, it would tragically compound that error by forcing it on the people. In the same way, I disagree with your theological stance on intoxicants and don't want it forced upon me by you or the government. While I respect your right to have such an opinion, I don't want to be forced to follow your beliefs any more than you want to be forced to follow mine. Accordingly, the only solution is for the government to stay out of it altogether. That way, you can get on to whatever you do for fun and I can get on to brewing a nice Bavarian-style Hefeweizen for my church's Oktoberfest party.
Before we all wet our pants, remember that National Review did a whole article on just this issue and I didn't see the GOP establishment quoting it left and right.
Steven writes:
Possible immediate detrimental health effects include altered awareness, reduced motor control, poisoning, and death by overdose.
Let's look a little more closely at your last two items, poisoning and death by overdose.
Most poisonings are due to drug contamination in the black market. In the black market, there is no quality control department, thus contaminated (poisonous) drugs do make their way into the hands of consumers from time to time. Of course, if these same drugs were legal, there would be quality control and contaminated drugs, like poisonous bath-tub gin, would be a thing of the past.
Ditto for overdoses. Once again, without any quality standards, consumers of illicit drugs may find themselves in possession of drugs which are more potent then what they've used in the past. Not knowing this, they take the same dosage, or so they think, but may actually be taking several times the dosage they normally take. Once again, legalization would stop this, as labeling would show the exact potency of the drug being purchased and consumed. Overdoses would drop dramatically with legalization.
The simple truth, Steven, is that prohibitionists like yourself have blood on your hands. Your policies have made drug usage mush riskier than it already is, leading to tens of thousands of preventable deaths. The prohibition you support has fostered a violent black market that kills many thousands more, here in the US and around the world. You only look at the cost of drug usage, and when doing so, only at the worst-case-scenarios. Your type never look at the costs of prohibition, which are quite high, with the above only a fraction of the costs the prohibitionists lay on society.
Would drug usage increase? No. In Great Britain in 1970 they had fewer then 10,000 heroin addicts. Today they have greater than 300,000 heroin addicts. What changed? Up until 1971 Britain gave heroin addicts free heroin. In 1971 the program ended and they adopted our drug criminalization policies.
In the Netherlands marijuana is quasi legal for adults with no criminal sanctions for its use.
The Dutch use marijuana at less than half the rate Americans do and they use heroin at less than a third the rate Americans do.
With legalization drug dealers as we know them today would disappear for economic reasons.
Drug dealers get new customers by giving away free samples.
dhex - you're probably aware of this, but in Amsterdam, a lot of the joints they sell are mixed with tobacco because of the increased THC.
And to go further on Lost_In_Translation's point, there are many "weaker" variants that aren't available now because they can't be transported to the US profitably, while their more addictive variants can be. So opium / laudanum and coca tea are never seen while smack and crack are plentiful.
From another of todays threads (Jacob Sullum asks policymakers just how many wars they want to lose in Afghanistan.)
J sub D | September 5, 2007, 12:34pm | #
The pertinent question is: Why does God like opium?
Steven, please explain.
All I know is that once American farmers can grow pot legally, they will produce so much, so fast that no one will be able to make a profit without federal subsidies 😉
Oh, and there's no way the major pharmaceutical, alcohol, or tobacco companies would ever touch any newly legalized recreational drugs.
That's funny.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe for a second that if drugs were legal no more people would use them than do now. As I said, I don't really need to look up empirical studies, common sense can fix this. I know I would try more drugs than I currently do, and there are bound to be some folks who would think likewise. Altered states are pleasurable and desirable. A lot of people though will stay away from ones that they know will lead to legal trouble. Lift the legal trouble and viola, they will try it. And I don't think you would lose the "rebellious user" who does it because it's prohibited simply because I don't think that exists in it's pure form. People do drugs because it often makes them feel good or is interesting.
Don't get me wrong, I'm generally for legalization. But just as I am opposed to gun control yet admit that if it were enacted we'd have less suicides and accidental shootings, I think legalization would certainly lead to more drug use and addiction. Not rampant, but increased. That's the price of freedom...
"costs associated with identifying/ arresting/ prosecuting/ incarcerating/ reintegrating into society people involved in the drug trade"
Sir,
I do believe that with re-legalization of drugs that these objections would become mostly null. No longer would my hard earned money be taken by force to identify/ arrest/ prosecute/ incarcerate/ and reintegrate people who have harmed no one. There will be a cost to go after those who commit crimes that do harm people while on drugs but it will be much less. This will also allow the police to go after those who commit crimes that do harm people while not on drugs as well. instead of the police focusing on criminals such as Jimmy Montgomery a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair for more than two years because of an injury. What harm could such a man do?
It also seems clear to me that the "Social costs" of the drug war such as income for terrorists, the total corruption of our police forces,(see Lester Siler and Kathryn Johnston) and the logical response of "don't snitch" far out way absence from work and lost productivity.
May God have mercy on us all.
Some very very good dialouge on this issue, great points and counter points...
Mr. Nice Guy,
The key word is "try". Most countries with experience in decriminalization have found that lots of people will *try* drugs that have become legal, but very, very few of these experimenters go on to become regular users. Nearly all the regular users you will ever have are already using (this shouldn't be too much of a shock, when you think about it).
Admit that legalizing drugs will cause more drug abuse, and then state your case as to why it would be worth it to legalize drugs anyway.
OK Dan, there will be enormous social consequences from decriminalizing the use of recreational drugs. However, drug use should be dealt with as a social problem, not a criminal problem.
First and foremost, the various governments of the US (from the local up to the national) need to stop shooting little old ladies in their ridiculous efforts to stop people from altering their state of consciousness.
You say that the most commonly used drugs today are the legal ones. But I say to you: Are these drugs heavily used today because they are legal, or are they legal because they are and were heavily used? Alcohol and tobacco consumption have strong traditions amongst the sorts of people who vote in the Halls of Congress - namely persons of European descent. No surprise then that alcohol and tobacco should remain legal and popular (well, legal most of the time anyways), whereas drugs popular with natives (marijuana) and other minorities should be banned.
Yes, an excellent point. Certainly alcohol being socially acceptable tends to keep it legal and the fact that it's legal tends to keep it socially acceptable.
Maybe this is why there is so much resistance to the marijuana legalization efforts in America? It's tough to break the chain of illegality leading to social unacceptance which leads to continued illegality.
I agree that drug legalization is increasingly likely outside the U.S. Heck, the economic possibilities of "narco-tourism" are staggering as long as the U.S. maintains prohibition. And if, as I predict, the U.S. becomes increasingly isolationist over the next decade or so, then the risks to foreign countries of legalization diminish.
Maybe this is why there is so much resistance to the marijuana legalization efforts in America? It's tough to break the chain of illegality leading to social unacceptance which leads to continued illegality.
That's undoubtedly so. I've never seen a prohibitionist argument about marijuana that was purely rational. Pot is just not that big a deal and is far less 'damaging' than alcohol.
J sub D | September 5, 2007, 11:51am | #
I don't know about y'all, but I'm really tired of Anheiser Busch drive-by shootings.
Me too. The kids in my neighborhood all run for cover when they hear the clip-clop of those Clydesdales coming down the street.
It's tough to break the chain of illegality leading to social unacceptance . . .
Gee, remember when adultery was a crime?
The Prospects for Global Drug Legalization
Little to none.
Mike Rosen just did a good radio interview with Ethan Nadelmann (9/4/07 - use 'bugmenot').
Ethan Nadelman
"Few people doubt any longer that the war on drugs is lost, but courage and vision are needed to transcend the ignorance, fear, and vested interests that sustain it."
Meet Steven:
"Consciously altering one's mind or state of consciousness is morally unjustifiable, and or against God's will as the creator of the human mind."
Gee, remember when adultery was a crime?
Not only that, but I remember when it was socially unacceptable!
Steven:
You write: Consciously altering one's mind or state of consciousness is morally unjustifiable, and or against God's will as the creator of the human mind.
But Christ's first miracle was not healing the blind, the halt or the lame, but turning water into wine. See John 2:6-10
6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
One more thought on drug legalization. As much as we can talk about what we think would happen, or what happened when alcohol prohibition was repealed or what happened in Holland, the simple fact is that if all drugs were suddenly legalized tomorrow in the United States, we have no idea what would happen. It would be a social experiment of the most severe kind.
Now, I'm no fan of the WoD but who here would seriously be willing to roll the dice like that with our society? I don't think I would.
Now, I'm no fan of the WoD but who here would seriously be willing to roll the dice like that with our society? I don't think I would.
How many more bodies of innocent citizens shot by police officers during erroneous raids do you need to know about before you consider rolling the dice?
Another good point, Dan.
But, really, we don't have to roll the dice like that. We can legalize marijuana, and wait and observe for a few years. We can legalize the next drug, say cocaine, and wait and observe for a few years. That's almost certainly how it would play out anyways - assuming, of course, that another nation doesn't legalize first.
If, for instance, France were to legalize all drugs tomorrow, we can wait five years to see what happens to France. If we observe essentially no negative effects, then we'd be fools not to do it ourselves. If, on the other hand, France is thrown into utter chaos by their actions, I doubt very much that the fad would catch on.
IMO, the drug law reform movement needs to stop pretending that legalizing drugs would not lead to a lot more use and therefore a lot more abuse.
I agree with Dan T. It's basic economics -- if you legalize drugs, the price will come down, and lower prices cause an increase in consumption.
As for the case why we should legalize anyway --
Moral grounds: It's none of the government's business what substances private individuals choose to ingest, not to mention the injustice of robbing people via taxes to pay for the drug war.
Practical grounds: A war on the Law of Supply and Demand can't be won. Higher prices mean more crime. Civil liberties get curtailed.
Etc.
I think it is unlikely that all drugs would be legalized at once.
The more plausible scenario would be a transitional one.
Even consider the simple act of the US Federal Government getting out of Marijuana enforcement. This would still leave fifty state laws of varying severity. Then possibly each state liberalizes, one at a time or a few at a time. And so on.
As each jurisdiction saw that disaster and chaos didn't erupt liberalization could progress.
To be truthful, I have few illusions about worldwide drug legalization. I am certain, though, that it won't occur in my lifetime.
The simple truth, Steven, is that prohibitionists like yourself have blood on your hands. Your policies have made drug usage mush riskier than it already is, leading to tens of thousands of preventable deaths. The prohibition you support has fostered a violent black market that kills many thousands more, here in the US and around the world. You only look at the cost of drug usage, and when doing so, only at the worst-case-scenarios. Your type never look at the costs of prohibition, which are quite high, with the above only a fraction of the costs the prohibitionists lay on society.
Simple answer, OBEY THE LAW!!!. Laws are meant to protect us, it is imorral to break the law. Some things like the drug laws may in some ways be counter productive, but morally it is the right thing to do and we must persevere.
What about all the negative affects the drugs cause? That is why they must be illegal, because if we just have strict enougth laws the problem would end. We have to do it for the children.
I think it is unlikely that all drugs would be legalized at once.
Very transistional and highly selective. Then, after some years have passed, when the first signs of negative health effects from drug use show up, they'll shoot right back into the 'banned' list because we now live in a nation where anything construed as having a negative health effect (even if only contextually dangerous) can be banned with the stroke of a city-councilmember's pen.
Laws are meant to protect us, it is imorral to break the law.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and assume that you're not a troll, trying to construct an argument on false pretenses, here.
The purpose of "laws" is multi-faceted. Some laws are designed to protect "us". Some laws are designed to protect "them". Some laws are designed for economic protection of the wealthy and/or established, some laws are designed to punish.
Obeying the law is not moral in and of itself. There are laws which are immoral on their face, and breaking them is an act of morality. I will not use this thread to discuss which laws those are, because that discussion isn't appropriate here.
I'm also going to take the bold assumption that your are a fairly devout Christian. That being said, I assume that you might be aware of certain laws passed that you may find immoral and go against Judeo-Christian principles.
The only major impediment to decriminalizing recreational drugs is defining the proper level and direction of the flow of campaign contributions from prospective manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to the appropriate elected representatives.
Simple answer, OBEY THE LAW!!!.
So if laws were passed that outlawed Christianity, you would obey them without a second thought? After all, it is immoral to break the law.
Laws are meant to protect us, it is imorral to break the law.
Actually, Steven, the laws you support are immoral. When you call a behavior a crime when it really isn't, you are bearing false witness against thy neighbor. The reason why prohibition is such a failure is because its very premises are based on a lie, that buying selling and using drugs is criminal. Your sin of bearing false witness against thy neighbor has born its fruit in preventable deaths and a violent black market. I'm sure Jesus is proud of you and your ilk.
"""Admit that legalizing drugs will cause more drug abuse, and then state your case as to why it would be worth it to legalize drugs anyway."""
We don't know if use would increase or decrease after legalization. It's speculation either way. Why pretend it's true? I've never known anyone not to use because of it illegal status. I know plenty that have quit because the job piss tested. Even if drugs were made legal, companies would prevent you from using via their policy, or you risk termination.
""Laws are meant to protect us, it is imorral to break the law.""
Tyrants throughout history have relied on the above sentence to justify it's actions.
The War on Alcohol ended when the federal government needed the taxes that could be levied on the sale of alcohol.
The War on Drugs will end when:
1) The big-business wing of the Republican party overrides the wishes of the law-and-order wing
2) Elected officials from both the Democratic party and Republican party recognize that the tax revenue that can be levied on the sale of recreational drugs will dwarf the Tobacco settlement providing virtually unlimited opportunities for earmarks
Steven writes:
We have to do it for the children.
You guys need to work on your troll recognition skillz.
3) Pigs fly.
I thought Bubba, being the party guy he was, would have relaxed drug laws.
I think part of the problem is when you're 40 you want to blame drugs for all your past problems. Smoking like a factory was cool in college, but later on in life, you want to blame it for you bad study habits. So you want to prevent others from making the same mistakes.
Laws are meant to protect us, it is imorral to break the law. Some things like the sodomy laws may in some ways be counter productive, but morally it is the right thing to do and we must persevere.
Laws are meant to protect us, it is imorral to break the law. Some things like the miscegenation laws may in some ways be counter productive, but morally it is the right thing to do and we must persevere.
Laws are meant to protect us, it is imorral to break the law. Some things like the Fugitive Slave Act may in some ways be counter productive, but morally it is the right thing to do and we must persevere.
So Steve, do you get my drift?
In the interests of comity and civilzed debate I have been tyring to avoid insulting other posters at this site. It's really goddam difficult sometimes.
Oh, what the hell. Steve, you sound like an idiot!
"No, the greatest downside to legalization may well be the fact that the legal markets would fall into the hands of the powerful alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies."
Boo! Big corporate conglomerates!
Ha! Scared ya, didn't I?
*Why's this so bad?*
Well it is bad from a libertarian perspective as none of those sectors are even remotely free market. If accompanied by deregulation and an end to government mandated monopoly/oligopoly I'd say there is no downside.
J sub D, cut Steve some slack, he's probably never had a civics or world history class in his life. He might not have had a problem with Jim Crow laws, slavery, or the King of England.
I'm with Dan T. here, Steven doing a hell of a job jerking everybody's chains.
I'm with Dan T. here, Steven doing a hell of a job jerking everybody's chains.
Ditto. His language was a little too constructed. Sort of like creating the drug warrior in your head, and then arguing from his perspective.
He might not have had a problem with Jim Crow laws, slavery, or the King of England.
If I didn't have this gun, the king of England could walk right in here and start pushing you around.
D'you want that? Huh? Do ya?
But I paid good money for a license to feed the trolls.......
DAN T observes: I mean, it's worth noting that Holland has not legalized harder drugs.
SH: Alcohol is most certainly legal for adults to consume and to sell in Holland.
As for other so-called "hard drugs" - notably cocaine and heroin - please accept my testimony as someone who has not only recovered from drug abuse but who has actively worked with drug treatment and recovery programs since 1994.
That is, there's a prevailing reason why we don't have a growing population of either cocaine or heroin abusers.
And that reason is simply that they are just way too strong and the effects too debilitating for anyone to consider long term use as a goal.
A legal cocaine market would undoubtably open the door for a lot more people to try cocaine.
But never fear.
They will learn the same lessons all cocaine users learn. And even better, with legal, greatly cheaper cocaine available, they'll learn those lessons a lot faster.
Like the vast majority of people who have tried cocaine in the past, they will then elect to stop using it.
My experience has taught me that the fastest way to cure a perceived desire for "more coke!!" is to give the user essentially unlimited access.
I've never met a man or woman in such a scene that lasted more than 60 days before begging for help to stop.
DAN T wonders: I wonder if herion were legal if many more people would try it because the stigma of illegality would no longer be there?
SH: You can answer that question by doing a friendly informal survey during coming weeks with those whom you come into contact.
Ask everyone the question you pose above and let us know as soon as you find someone who truthfully responds, "Ya know, I just might give that heroin a peek if they legalize it."
It's pretty much akin to asking an adult over the age of 30 who has never been a cigarette smoker, "Hey, have you ever considered starting a tobacco use cycle? I mean hey, it's right up there at the grocery store for less than $10!"
Steve in Clearwater,
They will learn the same lessons all cocaine users learn.
That is nonsense. Plenty of people use coke recreationally with no such problems. It is the myth of the drug war that all such drugs are so addictive that they lead to a never ending craving for more which can only be cured by realizing the need for complete abstinence. Just like the alcoholic who can't control his drinking, there are certainly those that fall prey to any substance, but that is not true for the majority of people I have been around. As someone who has used, and still once in a while enjoys a coke and a smile, I have no cravings for it, I can go months (or years) with none and not feel any urge to do it. When I do it is simply because someone has made it readily available and I think it can make for a fun and enjoyable party - pretty much like drinking except with far less side effects (no hangover, no disrupting your ability to drive - hell it improves it with increased alertness - no impaired thinking or embarrassing behavior). In fact, it was quite amazing to me after the first few times I tried it that something so relatively benign (which is not to say it isn't intense) as the high you get from coke is illegal while getting drunk is just fine, given it's far greater negative consequences.
So no, not all coke users become coke fiends who burn out in a couple months and require help to stop. Perpetuating that image has been done to help foster support for the drug war but it is in my experience complete bullshit.* In times of prohibition I'll be the same kind of thing was said of alcohol - and if alcohol were illegal today we'd surely be hearing stories about how everyone who tries booze becomes a homeless drunk on the street corner drinking mouthwash to satisfy his addiction within months of trying it.
* Again, that should not be taken to imply that nobody has problems with it - but as we have documented on this board many times there are people who get addicted and have debilitating effects from almost anything - booze, smoking, porn, video games, gambling - you name it.
Dan T is absolutely wrong. IF they were legal drug use would actually drop. There would be no more pushers, and more important it would take the criminal element out of the equation. I have followed drug use since the 1950's and making it illegal has only got organized crime into the business. They are good at it are'nt they? If it was legal drugs could at least be sure of quality.
Except that countries who have started decriminalization have fund pretty much the opposite. The Netherlands, for example, found that marijuana use spiked suddenly (as people here seem to expect) right after legalization, but shortly after there was a rapid fall off to a use-rate just slightly higher than pre-legalization levels.
I wonder if they only counted residents of the country or if those numbers include all the tourists..?
The War on Drugs will end when:
1) The big-business wing of the Republican party overrides the wishes of the law-and-order wing
Which law-and-order wing is that, (a) the one that wants to protect law enforcement jobs and expand the prison system, or (b) the one that actually cares about, oh, law and order? In the alternate universe where the answer is (b), one need only demonstrate that violent crime would be cut in half or more on the day that the War on Drugs is ended.
Laws are meant to protect us, it is imorral to break the law.
Time for a Godwin violation: when the Nazis outlawed hiding Jews slated to go to the concentration camps, clearly it would have been immoral to break that law, yeah?
Spend some time around politicians debating laws they're thinking of enacting, as I have, and you might develop a profound contempt for virtually all politicians and many if not most laws.
Guys, I still think drug use would increase if it were legal. Just because it becomes legal does not mean users will stop buying, so there will be "pushers" (who usually do little "pushing" in my experience) or companies would make it. As I said, I drink alcohol recreationally. I enjoy the altered state it gives me. From talking with friends who have done or still do various harder drugs I know for a fact that if drugs were legalized I would try heroin for sure. Certainly there are folks out there who would love to try some drug that currently because it is illegal is A. hard to get (I know a lot of druggies, and could probably score some heroin, but it would really be a pain in the ass) B. and scary in the sense that you might get drug tested for it at work, or caught with it in your car.
Look at our legal drugs. Over 50% of Americans reported using alcohol in the LAST 30 DAYS. http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t398.pdf
But less than 10% of Americans have used an illegal drug in the last 30 days.
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t388.pdf
Now anyone can tell you that many illegal drugs give you highs at least comparable and often better than alcohol. So tell me, why in the world would 50% of Americans use alcohol in the last 30 days, but only 10% use illegal drugs? Are the illegal ones somehow inherently less pleasurable? Worse side effects? Get real. It's because they are illegal.
You libs are supposed to be big on economic theory. Well, it's called incentives, the driving force behind the science of economics. There are far more disincentives in using drugs that are made illegal. But come on, common sense would have told you this!
There are far more disincentives in using drugs that are made illegal. But come on, common sense would have told you this!
Yes, MNG is right about this - it doesn't make any sense to argue the point and in fact there is no reason to! The real price of using any drug that is now illegal includes both the high monetary street-price as well as the risks of getting caught, dealing with unsavory dealers, getting bad quality stuff, etc. All of those price components, and hence the true total price, would fall dramatically under legalization. Basic economics tells you if the price of a good falls to expect people to consume more of the good (except in certain rare situations). How much more depends on its price elasticity, but that there will be more people consuming drugs that become legal seems hardly a controversial economic question.
But why is this such a bad thing to admit? I don't get it. Unless you really think that using a drug is somehow immoral, why would it be troubling to any of you that more people might be free to choose for themselves to try something, and which is presumably enjoyable? I see it as a good thing when prices fall for things people want to buy - whether it is the price of gas, HDTV's, computers or cocaine. More people get more enjoyment for their money and have more of it left over to enjoy other things. That is something libertarians and free-market supporters should see as a good thing and should be looked at as yet another positive result of drug legalization. It is somewhat troubling that people committed to the idea of freedom would seem more willing to count increased tax revenues from legalization as a benefit (it's not) than to count increased drug use as a benefit (it is).
My sentiments exactly Mr. Courts. We should stop fighting the (losing) empirical battle of whether legalization would mean more use, and just say, so what people are free to do what they want to with their bodies...
We have at least one recent model in the USA of selective decontrol of a controlled substance: loperamide. Starting in schedule 1N of the CSA, it was gradually moved administratively into higher numbered schedules (and the "narcotic" designation removed) over a few years until eventually it was decontrolled. You may know it by brand name, Imodium. There have been no moves to recontrol it, no horrendous stories of "abuse". So perhaps this could be used as a model for a slightly more popular drug next time, and then one more popular than that, etc.
Robert:
No shit?
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Wow, I am impressed. A "think-tank" that actually thinks!
Jeesh, what is all this talk of Miller Brewing company providing/controlling/manipulating etc. Who the hell needs Miller, if it is legal, grow your own!
TEMPANONY, I erred by not including the adjective "active" in my earlier rant.
To wit:
"They will learn the same lesson learned by all active cocaine users..."
I absolutely concur that it's possible to occasionally use cocaine.
It is, however, very challenging to not redose if supply is immediately available.
I'm not aware of any drug (and I've used just about all of em during the past 30 years) that stimulates redosing at such short frequency as does cocaine.
Also please note that my comments were in response not just to the notion of there possibly being increased cocaine use in a legal market. I was intending to respond to the notion that there would be increased "compulsive, destructive" use - which is certainy the implied vision presented when someone sternly warns, "In a legal market, USE WOULD INCREASE!!"
In my humble experience, it's not the compulsive "use" that causes most problems in today's market. It's the many irrational and often criminal behaviors that are acted out in order to satisfy that short-term compulsion.
Such behaviors would be unneccesary if cocaine (or any drug) were more readily accessible.