Good Article & Survey on DRUG TRADE / LEGALISATION from economist.com !! - 2006/07/21 18:02Two genuinely good reads about drugs and the BIG PICTURE... how banning them affects societies and the economy. Links to articles: http://economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=709603http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=706591 Here`s some `cut and paste`s of some good points mentioned in the above links: DRUG BAN HARMS The practical case for a liberal approach rests on the harms that spring from drug bans, and the benefits that would accompany legalisation. At present, the harms fall disproportionately on poor countries and on poor people in rich countries. In producer and entrepot countries, the drugs trade finances powerful gangs who threaten the state and corrupt political institutions. Colombia is the most egregious example, but Mexico too wrestles with the threat to the police and political honesty. The attempt to kill illicit crops poisons land and people. Drug money helps to prop up vile regimes in Myanmar and Afghanistan. And drug production encourages local drug-taking, which (in the case of heroin) gives a helping hand to the spread of HIV/AIDS. LEGALISE TO REGULATE Removing these harms would bring with it another benefit. Precisely because the drugs market is illegal, it cannot be regulated. Laws cannot discriminate between availability to children and adults. Governments cannot insist on minimum quality standards for cocaine; or warn asthma sufferers to avoid ecstasy; or demand that distributors take responsibility for the way their products are sold. With alcohol and tobacco, such restrictions are possible; with drugs, not. This increases the dangers to users, and especially to young or incompetent users. Illegality also puts a premium on selling strength: if each purchase is risky, then it makes sense to buy drugs in concentrated form. In the same way, Prohibition in the United States in the 1920s led to a fall in beer consumption but a rise in the drinking of hard liquor. PROHIBITION - MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES? It may seem distasteful to think of drugs as a business, responding to normal economic signals. To do so, however, is not to deny the fact that the drugs trade rewards some of the world`s nastiest people and most disagreeable countries. Nor is it to underestimate the harm that misuse of drugs can do to the health of individuals, or the moral fury that drug-taking can arouse. For many people, indeed, the debate is a moral one, akin to debates about allowing divorce, say, or abortion. But moral outrage has turned out to be a poor basis for policy. America`s illegal-drugs policy is a dismal re-run of its attempt to prohibit the sale of alcohol Nowhere is that more evident than in the United States. Here is the world`s most expensive drugs policy, absorbing $35 billion-40 billion a year of taxpayers` cash. It has eroded civil liberties, locked up unprecedented numbers of young blacks and Hispanics, and corroded foreign policy. It has proved a dismal rerun of America`s attempt, in 1920-33, to prohibit the sale of alcohol. That experiment-not copied in any other big country-inflated alcohol prices, promoted bootleg suppliers, encouraged the spread of guns and crime, increased hard-liquor drinking and corrupted a quarter of the federal enforcement agents, all within a decade. Half a century from now, America`s current drugs policy may seem just as perverse as Prohibition.
Re:Good Article & Survey on DRUG TRADE / LEGALISATION from economist.com !! - 2006/07/21 18:19What is incredible is that the cost estimated is around $40 billion dollars. I`ll bet that does not include things such as: 1) Lost wages due to incarceration 2) Legal costs for accused 3) Prison and prison expansion costs 4) Costs incurred as a result of releasing violent criminals to make room for manditory drug incarcerations I`ll bet that the total annual cost could run as high as 3 times the estimate.
banning them affects societies and the economy. Links to articles: http://economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=709603http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=706591 Here`s some `cut and paste`s of some good points mentioned in the above links: DRUG BAN HARMS The practical case for a liberal approach rests on the harms that spring from drug bans, and the benefits that would accompany legalisation. At present, the harms fall disproportionately on poor countries and on poor people in rich countries. In producer and entrepot countries, the drugs trade finances powerful gangs who threaten the state and corrupt political institutions. Colombia is the most egregious example, but Mexico too wrestles with the threat to the police and political honesty. The attempt to kill illicit crops poisons land and people. Drug money helps to prop up vile regimes in Myanmar and Afghanistan. And drug production encourages local drug-taking, which (in the case of heroin) gives a helping hand to the spread of HIV/AIDS. LEGALISE TO REGULATE Removing these harms would bring with it another benefit. Precisely because the drugs market is illegal, it cannot be regulated. Laws cannot discriminate between availability to children and adults. Governments cannot insist on minimum quality standards for cocaine; or warn asthma sufferers to avoid ecstasy; or demand that distributors take responsibility for the way their products are sold. With alcohol and tobacco, such restrictions are possible; with drugs, not. This increases the dangers to users, and especially to young or incompetent users. Illegality also puts a premium on selling strength: if each purchase is risky, then it makes sense to buy drugs in concentrated form. In the same way, Prohibition in the United States in the 1920s led to a fall in beer consumption but a rise in the drinking of hard liquor. PROHIBITION - MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES? It may seem distasteful to think of drugs as a business, responding to normal economic signals. To do so, however, is not to deny the fact that the drugs trade rewards some of the world`s nastiest people and most disagreeable countries. Nor is it to underestimate the harm that misuse of drugs can do to the health of individuals, or the moral fury that drug-taking can arouse. For many people, indeed, the debate is a moral one, akin to debates about allowing divorce, say, or abortion. But moral outrage has turned out to be a poor basis for policy. America`s illegal-drugs policy is a dismal re-run of its attempt to prohibit the sale of alcohol Nowhere is that more evident than in the United States. Here is the world`s most expensive drugs policy, absorbing $35 billion-40 billion a year of taxpayers` cash. It has eroded civil liberties, locked up unprecedented numbers of young blacks and Hispanics, and corroded foreign policy. It has proved a dismal rerun of America`s attempt, in 1920-33, to prohibit the sale of alcohol. That experiment-not copied in any other big country-inflated alcohol prices, promoted bootleg suppliers, encouraged the spread of guns and crime, increased hard-liquor drinking and corrupted a quarter of the federal enforcement agents, all within a decade. Half a century from now, America`s current drugs policy may seem just as perverse as Prohibition.
Forums 
post new topic
