Farnham for US Senate: #IMPOVERISH_DRUG_LORDS

The most effective way to put money and power in the hands of criminals is to make something popular illegal.

What do I mean? I mean we should have learned this from the Prohibition. We should have learned this from the great failure of the war on drugs.

IF you really want less addiction and use of drugs, you are far better off to stop having them be illegal.

What?

Okay, there will always be a baseline use of drug of various kinds for recreational purposes. Do you want it to be more or less?

When you make something illegal, you create a profit incentive for criminals to smuggle and distribute whatever it is. Because they profit from illegal consumption it is guaranteed they will market the illegal thing to make it more popular.

This is what funds the drug cartels. This is what makes drugs expensive. This is what prevents legal investment in the creation of recreational drugs that are safer and less addictive.

IF you really want less addiction and use of drugs, you had better get behind eliminating the profit motive to push drugs.

It really is that simple. NO illegal drugs. Cocaine will be about the price of aspirin. Am I saying you should go have some? NO. What I’m saying is that there will be no profit in pushing. If there is no profit, there will be no marketing. If there is no profit there will be no drug lords and they will not have funds to arm their killers.

So take the power out of the hands of the drug lords and reduce addiction: Just make it ALL legal.

#IMPOVERISH_DRUG_LORDS and empty our jails. Fifty years is just too long to let this idiocy continue.

 

Advertisements

About rsiz

Father and Husband, Oracle Technology Scientist and Consultant, planning to end poverty for citizens and legal US residents Lebanon, NH · http://www.rsiz.com See my wife's puzzles at thingamajigsaw.com
This entry was posted in politics, Thinking Clearly. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Farnham for US Senate: #IMPOVERISH_DRUG_LORDS

  1. jgarry says:

    The economic argument is mostly spot-on. But you lose me at the ” the creation of recreational drugs that are safer and less addictive.” There is no incentive for that. Just as with bad quality control on alcohol distilleries aka moonshiners makes product where people go blind, underground experimentation with various drugs has created things like instant Parkinson’s patients. Isn’t the underground economy the closest we have to no government regulation?

    Then when people find loopholes in the current law you get legal drugs like “bath salts” and whatever, people literally banging skillets on their faces (google luke lipscomb frying pan). Ending prohibition, usage will go up (as it has with the end of prohibitions in various places). People are messing with stuff without sufficient theoretical base, and in particular messing with reward feedback mechanisms.

    Not saying it would be worse than the current situation, just that there are some predictable hazards, that can’t be solved with simple “less government” paradigms.

    • rsiz says:

      I think you misunderstand me. IF all drugs are legal, then legitimate big pharma CAN invest in safer and less addictive recreational drugs.

      There may be a bump in consumption from the currently addicted.

      What will unquestionably happen is there will be less marketing of the most harmful drugs, and the script will be more about purity and safety. Something like “Have a great time and be sure you won’t go blind!”

      There should be no “underground” and then the competition that remains will be on cost and quality and brand loyalty.

  2. jgarry says:

    Just because they can, doesn’t mean they will. The incentive is the opposite – to hide information in favor of creating a desire to purchase. Just look at the various energy drinks. Remember Metabolife 365? See wikipedia if you don’t.

    And that sort of thing is why regulation of drugs came about in the first place. The racist craziness came later.

  3. rsiz says:

    The Metabolife 365 episode is EXACTLY an argument for it all being legal. Bad products would compete with good products transparently in daylight. Purity and content documentation then poses no criminal risk and therefore does not put money and power in the hands of criminals. Instead of the FDA “banning” a substance (where “banning” means “creates a black market for”), the FDA would publish something like: Metabolife 365 contains a lot of ephedra and ephedra tends to screw you up and may kill you. Then each individual decides in the free market what to buy. I apparently have not convinced you that “Making something popular illegal is the most effective way to put money and power in the hands of criminals.” I believe that to be true and I believe all the profit motive marketing that follows on from my logic is correct. PS: I don’t get your leap to racist craziness or what that has to do with the argument to end the war on drugs. Perhaps the dots you are connecting is the current reality of a correlation of desperate poverty and race, which makes the illegal drug trade that I would eliminate a tempting vocation. IF SO, I suggest that the #SAFE_DEAL mitigates that problem in an “everyone wins” way. In fact I advocate moving ahead with both #IMPOVERISH_DRUG_LORDS and the #SAFE_DEAL as soon as possible. They reinforce each other in an effective way to make the forces of economics dispatch three of our most troubling societal issues: domestic poverty, unsustainable illegal immigration, and powerful rich drug lords.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s