Gooserider
Mod Emeritus
As a comment - I've done substitute teaching, and I have personally asked the kids about getting various substances - ALL said that it was difficult to get booze and tobacco because of gov't regs on ID checks, but the dealers didn't check ID's so it was very easy to get canibas and other harder drugs...
The War on (some) Drugs IMHO makes the entire problem worse, in much the same way that Prohibition made (and still makes) our alcohol problems worse.
It runs the price up, and increases the profit margins - this makes it a highly profitable business, worth fighting over, and without legal means of dispute resolution - look at the crime rates during Prohibition, and how rapidly they dropped after it no longer made sense to gun down the competition.
It forces the customer to deal with underground people, who have a motivation to sell harder (and higher profit margin) drugs
It runs up the costs for addicts so that they almost have to commit crimes to support their habbits - A hard core addict now needs over $100/day, hard to come by honestly, but I've seen published statements by our current pharmecuitical companies that they could PROFITABLY supply the same addict through the existing drug-store supply chain for $8-10/day, if it were legal, an amount the addict could get by panhandling if nothing else...
It is dangerous for the consumer - there is no "quality control" - the stuff you buy today might be totally different from what you get tomorrow. This isn't a big deal with pot, unless it's laced w/ something (how do you know?) but with drugs that have potential for deadly overdoses, it is a major problem. Legal suppliers would presumably be forced to engage in some form of "truth in advertising" and QA rating, as well as avoiding dangerous addititves just to avoid legal liability -
Since dealers are already breaking the law, they have no reason not to deal to kids - if it were legal you could somewhat discourage it by imposing some variant on the 'alcohol model' - a determined kid will get stuff no matter what you do (and it is foolish to pretend otherwise) but I've never been OFFERED the chance to buy black market Buttwiper or Camels, however I get offered illegal drugs all the time...
That there are legal restrictions on substances encourages "binge drinking" and other abusive behaviour because you need to get all you can when the getting is good, because you don't know when the next chance will come around...
Etc. Etc. I have never seen a "problem with drugs" argument that was used to push the War on Some Drugs that didn't really work out to be WORSE because they were illegal...
No offense meant to individual low level LEO types, but I have often thought that the way our system works provides strong incentive on the part of our senior LEO types, Police Union officials, and such to push for laws against some drugs and other "consensual crimes" simply because it allows them to grow their budgets and sizes in order to "deal with the problem".... Besides it's probably safer and easier than chasing the few REAL violent criminals out there!
Gooserider
The War on (some) Drugs IMHO makes the entire problem worse, in much the same way that Prohibition made (and still makes) our alcohol problems worse.
It runs the price up, and increases the profit margins - this makes it a highly profitable business, worth fighting over, and without legal means of dispute resolution - look at the crime rates during Prohibition, and how rapidly they dropped after it no longer made sense to gun down the competition.
It forces the customer to deal with underground people, who have a motivation to sell harder (and higher profit margin) drugs
It runs up the costs for addicts so that they almost have to commit crimes to support their habbits - A hard core addict now needs over $100/day, hard to come by honestly, but I've seen published statements by our current pharmecuitical companies that they could PROFITABLY supply the same addict through the existing drug-store supply chain for $8-10/day, if it were legal, an amount the addict could get by panhandling if nothing else...
It is dangerous for the consumer - there is no "quality control" - the stuff you buy today might be totally different from what you get tomorrow. This isn't a big deal with pot, unless it's laced w/ something (how do you know?) but with drugs that have potential for deadly overdoses, it is a major problem. Legal suppliers would presumably be forced to engage in some form of "truth in advertising" and QA rating, as well as avoiding dangerous addititves just to avoid legal liability -
Since dealers are already breaking the law, they have no reason not to deal to kids - if it were legal you could somewhat discourage it by imposing some variant on the 'alcohol model' - a determined kid will get stuff no matter what you do (and it is foolish to pretend otherwise) but I've never been OFFERED the chance to buy black market Buttwiper or Camels, however I get offered illegal drugs all the time...
That there are legal restrictions on substances encourages "binge drinking" and other abusive behaviour because you need to get all you can when the getting is good, because you don't know when the next chance will come around...
Etc. Etc. I have never seen a "problem with drugs" argument that was used to push the War on Some Drugs that didn't really work out to be WORSE because they were illegal...
No offense meant to individual low level LEO types, but I have often thought that the way our system works provides strong incentive on the part of our senior LEO types, Police Union officials, and such to push for laws against some drugs and other "consensual crimes" simply because it allows them to grow their budgets and sizes in order to "deal with the problem".... Besides it's probably safer and easier than chasing the few REAL violent criminals out there!
Gooserider
