*Rar* Crashing the drug trade

[Mr Bean]

Hypothetical situation for everyone here.

On Jan 12th, thanks to a massive protest in which fifty thousand people openly light up on the Mall (In DC) the Democrats decided to run a bill through congress that decriminalizes the top three most popular drugs. Cocaine, Pot, LSD are all made legal to buy, to grow and sell. Lets say that it has 100% support of the democrats, partial support of the republicans as well as King George signs it. And the Supreme Court decides not to touch it.

Because of this hypothetical bill, the top three drugs are placed under the same sorts of controls and restrictions that Beer is as far as driving and possession goes. (Bill goes into effect at the end of June 2007)

What happens to crime rates and the society at large?

(Assume for the purposes of this hypothetical that those already in prison for possession and distribution of said drugs won't all be let out at once, but rather have to fight through the legal system first.)

[Maraxus]

Pharmicudical companies jump at the chance to make billions through the cocaine trade alone. While they won't be able to enforce their products through superior firepower like the modern day drug cartels, they easily have superior business skills.

We also might see a decrease in the number of people dying from bad drugs. Companies no longer have the opportunity to cut their products with baking soda or other shit like that, because now competitors will horn in on their business. And if it's anything like prohibition, the number of people using the drugs will probably stay the same.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Won't there be economic consequences if substantial numbers of people get addicted to the drug? It's like legalised gambling, but far more addictive.

[Master of Cards]

Won't there be economic consequences if substantial numbers of people get addicted to the drug? It's like legalised gambling, but far more addictive.

Look at Holland

[CarsonPalmer]

It would seem to me that drug use would go up at first, due to the idea of doing something that used to be illegal, but over time, drug use would go down, as its no longer something taboo. I think you'd lose a lot of the rebellious teenage drug users. But this is just rough conjecture.

[Count Dooku]

It would seem to me that drug use would go up at first, due to the idea of doing something that used to be illegal, but over time, drug use would go down, as its no longer something taboo. I think you'd lose a lot of the rebellious teenage drug users. But this is just rough conjecture.

I'd imagine that the Cocaine market would be an ever growing one. . . .

[Pelranius]

Wouldn't the situation in America than start to resemble late 19th century China, where by some estimates at least 20% of the population had become full blown addicts?

What would possibly stop millions of people from deciding to try cocaine and getting stuck in the ditch, so to speak, for their rest of the lives?

[Plekhanov]

Wouldn't the situation in America than start to resemble late 19th century China, where by some estimates at least 20% of the population had become full blown addicts?

What's your source for those 'estimates'? 20% sounds insanely high for a society in which the vast majority of people were peasants.

[Elaro]

We are assuming that the anti-drugs PSAs remain? "Don't do drugs", that kind of thing? If so, I don't see why the number of drug users would grow by a significant amount.

What I see happening is the crime organisations either exert their influences on the honest drug salesmen, or the source for these drugs stay the same (poor South American/Middle Eastern countries), which doesn't solve the global socio-economic impact of drugs. It's a problematic, to be sure.

I have considered this idea of a "drug center", with nonprofit (maybe the State) people selling all types of drugs with psychologists and social workers right there in the building, so the druggies could get treatment (and exposure to solutions regarding the problem behind their drug use) if they wanted.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Wouldn't the situation in America than start to resemble late 19th century China, where by some estimates at least 20% of the population had become full blown addicts?

What's your source for those 'estimates'? 20% sounds insanely high for a society in which the vast majority of people were peasants.

Because opium was dirt-cheap since it was a huge cash-crop thoughout central Asia. There is a reason Mao had all the dealers summarily executed.

[Srynerson]

Cocaine, Pot, LCD are all made legal to buy

(emphasis added)

This typo is reminding me of Kirk's line from ST:IV - "You'll have to forgive my friend. He did a little too much LDS in the '60s."

And to answer the question, I'd expect rates for property crimes and violent crime rates to slowly drop, as it would probably take a year or more for legal distribution outlets to develop, so in the short run the existing criminal enterprises would still dominate the production and retail stages of the business, although the transport stage would be able to switch almost immediately to fully legal methods. I'd also anticipate a short-term jump in traffic accidents, workplace injuries, etc., as some people overindulge to celebrate the end of prohibition, before settling down to a similar level to what it was before. I tend to doubt that there would be a significant jump in the rate of addiction because, frankly, if you were inclined to have an addiction to one of these drugs, you've probably already tried it and become hooked because they aren't that difficult to get ahold of right now.

[Plekhanov]

Wouldn't the situation in America than start to resemble late 19th century China, where by some estimates at least 20% of the population had become full blown addicts?

What's your source for those 'estimates'? 20% sounds insanely high for a society in which the vast majority of people were peasants.

Because opium was dirt-cheap since it was a huge cash-crop thoughout central Asia. There is a reason Mao had all the dealers summarily executed.

That's as maybe I'd still like to see a source for this and see the reasoning and evidence by which they came up with that figure.

[Darth Wong]

I think there's no question that drug use would go up overall. If it becomes easier to obtain the stuff, and it's made by reputable pharmaceutical companies so there is almost no risk of deadly contamination or "spiking", then legalizing it takes away some of the reasons not to try it. And if you remove some of the reasons NOT to try it, then you'd have a hard time convincing me that there would be no corresponding effect on the usage rate.

However, the massive economic and social costs associated with the illicit drug trade would go down, with roughly the same certainty that overall drug use would go up. You're trading one poison for another, but at least the victims of this particular poison would have made the (stupid) choice for themselves.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Wouldn't the situation in America than start to resemble late 19th century China, where by some estimates at least 20% of the population had become full blown addicts?

What's your source for those 'estimates'? 20% sounds insanely high for a society in which the vast majority of people were peasants.

The Opium addiction in China was so bad that the Emperor issued an edict to eradicate Opium addiction where by people were beheaded etc.

I don't have the exact figures, but given that landless peasants who blew all their money immigrated down to South East Asia could get their hands on it, it suggests that it is a serious addiction in China.

[Wicked Pilot]

Won't there be economic consequences if substantial numbers of people get addicted to the drug? It's like legalised gambling, but far more addictive.

Look at Holland

Holland is irrelevant as their drug laws are massively dissimiliar to what is being proposed here. Cocaine and LCD are illegal there, and pot is available in only small doses in coffee shops.

[Covenant]

I think it's safe to say that there'd be massive economic consequences in America if this happens. We are not a culture that has learned yet how to perform in moderation, especially in this regard. Like the differences between European drinking habits and American drinking habits, it's a different culture, and it'd take some time before people could get over the sudden availability. I know I'd never try anything, but I'd be terrified of someone stoned driving their car into my house by mistake, or people dropping out of work and such.

So easing ourselves into it might make it a smoother transition. I'm not sure what the rationale behind legalizing cocaine is, though, or LSD. Those are both fairly dangerous from what I understand. In an ideal world, people may be able to handle and balance that kind of recreational drug use with the rest of their life, but I have to fear what a massive amount of cocaine use would do to this society.

[Wicked Pilot]

I think I like the Netherlands method better. We differentiate between hard and soft drugs, punish the pusher not the user, and allow people to experiment with soft drugs like pot in controlled settings to keep them away from the harder substances. No system if going to be perfect, but if we're going to overhall drug policy let's take our time here and go in small steps, throughly evaluating the results of each step along the way.

[2000AD]

Given how much the government taxes alcohol and tobbaco (I'm assuming simular rates for the US as they are in the UK) wouldn't they be able to make a shit ton of money by taxing this new trade?