well, someone got thoroughly owned. cigarette smoking is down.
alcohol use is down.
remove the sin and remove the allure.

Quoting pampl: I'm not sure I can respond to this ep without sounding like a raging leftie, but I'll try anyway.

Balko's comparisons between the alcohol prohibition and the current drug prohibition are pretty good, but it's worth keeping in mind that's not the only way things can go. Legal cigarettes meant a century of companies making their product more lethal, more addictive, and falsifying research to claim the opposite. Legal organizations have far more power to play the pusher than some marginalized poor kids in the ghetto.

I think Balko also ignores the possible danger to foreign policy. US prohibition efforts abroad are pretty bad, but a US-led opium war would be much worse.

I've listened to this - there were a few distractions while I was doing so, but don't recall Balko supporting a "US-led opium war." Did I miss something? One distinction between legally sanctioned distribution and a black market is that it's at least possible to mandate transparency in the case of the former. And I think the analogy to crack-cocaine shows that black marketeers can be at least as effective in the creation of more lethal, more addictive iterations of their product.

David made a number of unfounded assertions (who could ever have imagined?) that had me snickering, but the real howler was his claim that it takes such a large amount of alcohol to cause people to behave objectionably that it doesn't often happen. Maybe you'd like to do "one Google search" on this, David? Since I know, by your own statement, that's how you like to do research into "horror stories." [Added] I thought Radley made a number of good points, and a salute to him for keeping a polite tone throughout. I wouldn't have been able to.

Quoting AemJeff: I've listened to this - there were a few distractions while I was doing so, but don't recall Balko supporting a "US-led opium war." Did I miss something?

One distinction between legally sanctioned distribution and a black market is that it's at least possible to mandate transparency in the case of the former. And I think the analogy to crack-cocaine shows that black marketeers can be at least as effective in the creation of more lethal, more addictive iterations of their product.

Nah, I must have phrased that badly. That's a possible harm to US foreign policy that the end of prohibition could lead to- I was accusing him of ignoring or not thinking of it. I don't really buy into the whole schpeil about Empire America overthrowing governments at corporations' behest, but I don't think trade remains completely unconsidered when military decisions are made either, and it's definitely not unconsidered by the rest of the world when they interpret America's actions. It could easily lead to more plausible and more troubling criticisms than the 'blood for oil' accusations about the Iraq war. I think the crack-cocaine example cuts both ways. The cocaine -> crack process became known

Repression of human behavior will always result in an explosion, while 'incentives' require the patience of Job to achieve success. Why have a 'war' over human behavior that is self-destructive (suicidal impulse) rather than a 'war' against homicidal behavior? Essentially, the entire 'war' on drugs is mis-framed, so it will eternally be ineffective. Drug use is not about hedonistic pleasure, hence its opposition by conservatives. Drug use is actually about the self-destructive mis-identification of pleasure for happiness. Unless we can change human nature, drug use should simply be legalized; controlled, taxed, with sanctions for hurting others by their use.

Quoting a Duoist: Drug use is not about hedonistic pleasure, hence its opposition by conservatives. Drug use is actually about the self-destructive mis-identification of pleasure for happiness.

I have to say I may have some relevant experience in this - I'm certainly acquainted with some folks who have made it a life study. Hedonism is not a bad hypothesis for the motivation of a substantial fraction of people who use drugs, many of whom (not all) seem to have completely missed out on the whole self-destruction phase.

Quoting a Duoist: Repression of human behavior will always result in an explosion, while 'incentives' require the patience of Job to achieve success.

I'm for regulation, but I'm not sure that we even need incentives. I think social shame would be effective enough. Just look at how cigarette smoking is down. Still legal, but highly regulated and socially unacceptable. I'd like to see the government become the drug dealer and dole out free or low cost crack, heroin, etc. in a controlled environment. That would effectively kill the demand for illegal drug dealers. Something benign like marijuana should be sold exclusively by the government. Revenues should go toward:
1. educating single mothers on parenting
2. increasing school hours from 8-5pm for the lowest performing schools.
3. incarcerating violent criminals for extra time.

This was ridiculous. Freddoso's argument amounted, more or less, to the notion that drugs must remain illegal because somebody started screaming at him on the subway once. I am of two minds about drug legalization, but this diavlog did nothing whatsoever to advance or even clarify the debate. How about Balko vs. Mark Kleiman? That would force Balko to tighten up his arguments. He did a fair amount of hand-waving in this conversation but since he was confronting nothing but cliches and non sequiturs from Freddoso it wouldn't be fair to hold Balko's rather loose argument here against him.

thinking that legalization of hard drugs will do anything positive is pure fantasy-land. why would you bow to a bunch of meth, cocaine and heroin users? it's totally disingenuous to pretend that: "What they do with their body is their choice." yeah, right. We don't need to imagine what would happen with more lax drug laws because Holland already tried it and it acted as a magnet for drug/human traffickers and they had an increase in addiction rates. i agree that locking up people for weed is stupid but not only is legalizing harder drugs is never going to happen here; it doesn't really change much. it's kinda like abortion - certain people are going to do it regardless of whether it's legal or not and others never do it at all. minor tweaks here and there obviously don't really matter because even with the wide range of drug prevention strategies employed all over the world....no one has "figured this out" yet. and as david mentioned i think it's naive and shortsighted to think that taking away drug dealers' moneymaker through legalization is going to

Quoting Titstorm: thinking that legalization of hard drugs will do anything positive is pure fantasy-land. why would you bow to a bunch of meth, cocaine and heroin users? it's totally disingenuous to pretend that: "What they do with their body is their choice." yeah, right. We don't need to imagine what would happen with more lax drug laws because Holland already tried it and it acted as a magnet for drug/human traffickers and they had an increase in addiction rates.

Welcome to bloggingheads Sarah Palin! Oh and I'd like to see the stats to back up your assertions.
psst: USA Today does not count.

I'm for legalization, but I always boggle at the people who try to float the "legalize it and then tax it!" argument as if a steep "sin tax" would roll back the national debt or something. Pot is an almost-free weed. The price is currently artificially high because of the "prohibition premium" that Radly was talking about, which encourages a black market. If you use taxes to create a similarly artificially high price, you're going to have a black market for those who wish to avoid the taxes. Here's a thought: Legalize it, and leave it at that. Let's give FREEDOM a try, and see how that works out.

I do worry that there would be many addicts, given my own experience with drugs and how easily one can become ruthlessly addicted. It does not seem, however, that David has done any research about, say, prevalence of addiction in those who try various drugs, genetic disposition to addiction, etc. but gives us meaningless anecdotes. He reminds me, in tone and demeanor, of that one conservative guy at a college party who doesn't toke up and argues all night with the libertarian kid who for some reason wears a Stasi uniform all the time.

Quoting cmonsour: This was ridiculous. Freddoso's argument amounted, more or less, to the notion that drugs must remain illegal because somebody started screaming at him on the subway once.

No, no, no! He also watched the History channel. This is the essence of reporting, I tell you: he's going out there, walking the mean streets (or, anyway, flipping through them with his remote), so that you don't have to. You think you could come up with that kind of historical data yourself? You'd call it a "Tommy Gun", not the "Thompson Gun", as Freddy did. Such precision comes from hours and hours of watching TV--real reporting, genuine News Work. Not to mention the man's expertise in the tradition to which he subscribes. You remember when he said that he's yelling "Stop"? That's a William F. Buckley Jr. reference, motherfuckers. This kid is schooled. So, how about showing some gratitude for this unparalleled display of expertise? How about giving some thanks to a dude who's been out there on the front lines, who has talked to the junkies, the dealers, the social workers, the cops, the doctors, the legislators? Did you hear even a single reference to any brand of scholarly research on any subject come out of his mouth? No! Because he

Fredoso is an Idiot! he claims anyone willing to do something illegal to make money will do ANYTHING illegal to make money. many people in the drug trade are simply business people. they buy or produce and then sell at a mark-up. just like most businesses in the world. they are not ,necessarily, people that would be willing to victimize other people through slavery, extortion, theft etc. The evidence supporting Balko's view is pretty irrefutable.

I already commented on David's piece, but here I just have to let some steam out. I have no idea why Balko would let so many things slide in this argument, but I almost dropped my jaw to the floor when David mentioned the screaming woman on the bus. I mean, doesn't he know how utterly irrelevant such cherry picked anecdotes are to the proper advancement of knowledge (aka. science)? I also strongly doubt that he was indeed able to question the screaming woman in any meaningful way in order to discover what exactly made her act like a mad person. No, David just let his paradigm work for him by letting it fill out the holes in his knowledge. So instead of actually KNOWING her to be a completely normal person who just happened to try meth once and got sucked into a raging abuse he simply ASSumes that that was what happened. Since she ACTS like his Woodoo Pharmacology drug-paradigm informs him meth-users act he simply used that theoretical prediction in lieu of real knowledge. Just how sure is David anyway that this poor woman wasn't simply one

The center of gravity in American politics has shifted, and the drug war is a hidden fault line (for both young conservatives and liberals) where there are new alliances begging to be made. If we weren't in the midst of a financial meltdown and two wars... The truth is, incarcerating people in the for-profit jail system is far more harmful than letting them do crack or meth or whatever homegrown drug people make up when the free market isn't allowed to work properly. In an open system, the funnest and safest drugs would be the cheapest. As it is today, the opposite is true.

Quoting Tara Davis: Pot is an almost-free weed. The price is currently artificially high because of the "prohibition premium" that Radly was talking about, which encourages a black market. If you use taxes to create a similarly artificially high price, you're going to have a black market for those who wish to avoid the taxes.

Liquor continues to sell even though there's a homebrew scene for alcohol. As always, people are willing to pay for accessibility. Most drug users are double-paying right now: once in convenience (my drug dealer doesn't keep bank hours) and again for the prohibition premium in terms of actual dollars. So using taxes to keep the price exactly the same would still be a big windfall for most drug users. They get to buy a joint from 7-11 along with their beers, and the states get to keep the revenue that was previously going to the black market.

Quoting DoctorMoney: Liquor continues to sell even though there's a homebrew scene for alcohol. As always, people are willing to pay for accessibility.

Most drug users are double-paying right now: once in convenience (my drug dealer doesn't keep bank hours) and again for the prohibition premium in terms of actual dollars.

So using taxes to keep the price exactly the same would still be a big windfall for most drug users. They get to buy a joint from 7-11 along with their beers, and the states get to keep the revenue that was previously going to the black market.

Exactly right. You could add cigarettes to that, too -- almost all the money paid by a consumer for a pack of smokes is tax, and while there are no doubt some black market cigarettes sold and it costs something to keep that under control, it does not appear to be a major problem. "Sin taxes" are a win. One thing to add from the consumer's point of view, too: I would rather pay something to do business in a legal way than put up with the hassles and risks of doing it illegally. I think

David's essay is excellent but the idea of drug legalization (cocaine, meth, Heroin, LSD) is absurd. These drugs were legal (19th century Coca-cola actually had cocaine) - and were made illegal by popular demand. These drugs did great harm to society. There were 5,000 cocaine related deaths in 1912, population of USA 1920; 100 million people. The comparison to Prohibition is inappropriate. 80 percent of the USA adult population drinks. No more than 5 percent use drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth) on a regular basis. Doubling the number of drug addicts would be disastrous. Further, cocaine is a dangerous stimulant. People have died after one standard dose. Moderate drinking, OTOH, actually has health benefits. And how are legal drugs to kept out the hands of minors? How are you going to prevent black-marketeers from undercutting the legal price? And legalization will result in a massive increase in drug addicts who will need medical care and economic support. So, its all another libertarian "how many angels can dance on a pin" argument. Maybe we'll legalize Heroin after we've stamped out cigarettes.

Well golly gee don't-ya know, thanks for the warm welcome, fag! and why wouldn't USA Today count? they're a perfectly reputable source. "However, there is a growing number of people seeking treatment for cannabis problems from the addiction care services. Between 1994 and 2005 the number of cannabis treatment clients increased from 1,950 to 5,500. From 2004 to 2005 there was an increase of 12 percent."
http://www.trimbos.nl/default22208.html?back=1 "The number of cannabis addicts in the Netherlands seeking help at official bodies has risen explosively since 1994. Cocaine and amphetamine users are also on the rise."
"The addiction care industry did however register up to 2004 "a strong growth in the number of primary cocaine clients, from 2,500 in 1994 to 10,000 in 2004," but "this trend has not continued in 2005 and 2006."
http://www.nisnews.nl/public/290508_3.htm "But here those anxieties are exacerbated by alarm over the international crime organizations that have infiltrated the country's prostitution and drug trades, the increasing prevalence of trafficking in women and children across its borders, and dismay over the Netherlands' image as an international tourist destination for drugs and sexual debauchery."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202015_pf.html "They flood in across the border from Germany and Belgium, along with the international criminal gangs who operate the drug

Quoting rcocean: David's essay is excellent but the idea of drug legalization (cocaine, meth, Heroin, LSD) is absurd. These drugs were legal (19th century Coca-cola actually had cocaine) - and were made illegal by popular demand. These drugs did great harm to society. There were 5,000 cocaine related deaths in 1912, population of USA 1920; 100 million people.

The comparison to Prohibition is inappropriate. 80 percent of the USA adult population drinks. No more than 5 percent use drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth) on a regular basis. Doubling the number of drug addicts would be disastrous. Further, cocaine is a dangerous stimulant. People have died after one standard dose. Moderate drinking, OTOH, actually has health benefits.

And how are legal drugs to kept out the hands of minors? How are you going to prevent black-marketeers from undercutting the legal price? And legalization will result in a massive increase in drug addicts who will need medical care and economic support.

So, its all another libertarian "how many angels can dance on a pin" argument. Maybe we'll legalize Heroin after we've stamped out cigarettes.

Superb post; just because alcohol, pot and cigarettes (and coffee, for that matter) exist on the same sliding scale as Crystal Meth and heroin does not mean that the social and health costs

Agreed. Fantastic post

"Hard drugs destroy lives." It's true. As I tried to hint earlier, it doesn't have to be true, but it is true often enough to be a valid observation. That's really not the same thing as "it's best if hard drugs are illegal," or even "fewer lives will be destroyed if hard drugs are illegal." And there's the even broader question "even if fewer lives would be destroyed if hard drugs are illegal, does that mean that we want to provide government with the moral authority to make that sort of decision for us?" We really ought to think carefully about all these questions. I don't think the answer to any of them is obvious.

Ugh. I shouldn't have asked for references from someone who can't see the context in which they're in. Your Trimbos numbers don't work for this argument. Even assuming they're valid, they do nothing for comparing NL to the US. How much of the increase is from non-Netherlanders? During the same period, hasn't US drug use gone up even more than NL percentage wise? Coffee shops have been available for decades. Why the surge in use now? Could it just maybe be that other social ills drive people to drugs more than the escapist allure? Anyway, those numbers do not help nor hurt your case one way or another. If you had Amsterdam's policy all over Europe, then NL wouldn't be hit with the brunt of all the demand. That article doesn't help your case. The doctors doling out heroin is a bad idea because it almost legitimizes getting high. Since a doctor is prescribing it, it's like medicine! That's horrible. I think that drugs should be very cheap to obtain, but with a high social stigma. That article doesn't help your case. Do not confuse my position with other people on this board. I don't expect legalization will cause people to

Quoting bjkeefe: Exactly right. You could add cigarettes to that, too -- almost all the money paid by a consumer for a pack of smokes is tax, and while there are no doubt some black market cigarettes sold and it costs something to keep that under control, it does not appear to be a major problem. "Sin taxes" are a win.

One thing to add from the consumer's point of view, too: I would rather pay something to do business in a legal way than put up with the hassles and risks of doing it illegally. I think iTunes shows how many people feel the same way, as another example besides tobacco and alcohol.

Granted, if you tried to tax pot to the point where it was $10,000/oz, you'd be providing lots of incentives for people to go the black market route, but there are plenty of price points below that where people will happily pay a premium for convenience and to be able to keep things above board. There's no reason to believe that people wouldn't happily pay what pot sells for now -- hundreds of dollars per ounce -- and that

Quoting rcocean: David's essay is excellent but the idea of drug legalization (cocaine, meth, Heroin, LSD) is absurd. These drugs were legal (19th century Coca-cola actually had cocaine) - and were made illegal by popular demand. These drugs did great harm to society. There were 5,000 cocaine related deaths in 1912, population of USA 1920; 100 million people.

The comparison to Prohibition is inappropriate. 80 percent of the USA adult population drinks. No more than 5 percent use drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth) on a regular basis. Doubling the number of drug addicts would be disastrous. Further, cocaine is a dangerous stimulant. People have died after one standard dose. Moderate drinking, OTOH, actually has health benefits.

And how are legal drugs to kept out the hands of minors? How are you going to prevent black-marketeers from undercutting the legal price? And legalization will result in a massive increase in drug addicts who will need medical care and economic support.

So, its all another libertarian "how many angels can dance on a pin" argument. Maybe we'll legalize Heroin after we've stamped out cigarettes.

Except that the incentives currently *promote* the usage of hard drugs. That's because marijuana-use is punished much more steeply (relative to the "crime") than hard-drug-use. The fact that the incentives are misaligned has

Quoting rcocean: The comparison to Prohibition is inappropriate. 80 percent of the USA adult population drinks. No more than 5 percent use drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth) on a regular basis. Doubling the number of drug addicts would be disastrous. Further, cocaine is a dangerous stimulant. People have died after one standard dose. Moderate drinking, OTOH, actually has health benefits.

And how are legal drugs to kept out the hands of minors? How are you going to prevent black-marketeers from undercutting the legal price? And legalization will result in a massive increase in drug addicts who will need medical care and economic support.

I think you're making a bunch of extremely dubious assertions here. There's no evidence whatsoever that drug addiction (whether that be to prescription drugs obtained illegally or street drugs) would double under any particular scenario. That's pure speculation. Addiction behaviors are notoriously hard to track, even today. The idea that some addiction number from 1915 could be multiplied by current population for a meaningful guess at what might happen if we fully legalized every drug is just silly. It's just as likely be true that most folks who want hard drugs have found them by now. We could open

Quoting Unit: Except that you're taxing the poor. It's a regressive tax.
I agree with Tara Davis 100%.

That may be, but drugs are not something that anyone has to buy; i.e., it's not like a sales tax on food, clothing, and other necessities.

Quoting bjkeefe: That may be, but drugs are not something that anyone has to buy; i.e., it's not like a sales tax on food, clothing, and other necessities.

For me there is still some residual paternalism in the sin tax: the govt deciding what is best for me by taxing this and not that. What next? A tax on cheeseburgers? A tax on low-cut jeans? Remember that there are no "necessities".

Quoting Unit: Remember that there are no "necessities".

Say what?

In all likelihood there would be considerably less "hard" drug use today if the government had never criminalized marijuana. The distribution network would be so much smaller that far fewer people would ever have encountered coke, etc. Many people in the chain of delivery to the end user of weed are not professional dealers. A kid goes to his buddy, who knows a guy in the dorm or frat house, who buys from somebody else in slightly larger quantity and gets his own weed for free as he bundles together several small orders, etc. At some point in the chain, a small-time dealer also handles other drugs and offers his buyer the chance to "try some of this, it's really cool". That new drug may then filter back down a branch of the distribution tree. At each stage, a new experimenter considers trying it with someone they know, trust, and get high with. If they like that new drug, they may get an introduction to a point of contact with a much smaller, much more professional and "criminal" network that deals in the "harder", more profitable drug. Take away that marijuana distribution network

So even though you were obviously wrong you decided to go with the "condescending/cocky" approach on BOTH occasions? Hmm...your rebuttals are beyond worthless so I think my work is done here. Where do these "intellectuals" hang out? Can I be "down"?

Quoting Unit: For me there is still some residual paternalism in the sin tax: the govt deciding what is best for me by taxing this and not that. What next? A tax on cheeseburgers? A tax on low-cut jeans? Remember that there are no "necessities".

I agree that the government deciding what's good and bad for you gets a little obnoxious, although it's my sense that "sin taxes" are put in place less for reasons of paternalism than because of the inelastic demand curve for the associated products. I grant that the selling of the implementation of said taxes can involve talking points that relate to "encourages people to cut down on potentially harmful substances" and the like. Ultimately, it doesn't bother me that substances which when abused are unhealthy are kept at a higher price, though. As to "no necessities," maybe. Econ 101 does teach us that there are always alternatives. But realistically speaking, the average person "needs" food, water, clothing, and shelter, and has no alternative but to buy at least most of these.

Pretty serendipitous that I would be poking fun at this issue at the same time I see this being raised at Blogginheads. I had to go ahead and register so I could share my tongue in cheek poll with the group. To wit: Flashback to the 1960s
http://thetimchannel.com/?p=342 Enjoy.

do not want

P.S. I thought Bill Scher had a good answer to this question of tobacco taxes in TWiB. Sorry I didn't think to dingalink it.

Quoting bjkeefe: I agree that the government deciding what's good and bad for you gets a little obnoxious, although it's my sense that "sin taxes" are put in place less for reasons of paternalism than because of the inelastic demand curve for the associated products. I grant that the selling of the implementation of said taxes can involve talking points that relate to "encourages people to cut down on potentially harmful substances" and the like.

Strange, earlier you were saying that sin taxes were ok because at least drugs and tobacco are not necessities (i.e. completely inelastic), and now you're telling me that these taxes are there because the corresponding demand curves are inelastic.

Quoting Unit: Strange, earlier you were saying that sin taxes were ok because at least drugs and tobacco are not necessities (i.e. completely inelastic), and now you're telling me that these taxes are there because the corresponding demand curves are inelastic.

I don't see your point.

A dispatch from the central front in the War on Drugs (TM): the schools.

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't see your point.

There seems to be a contradiction in saying that the govt likes sin-taxes "because tobacco use etc is inelastic" and at the same time "because they help curb the tobacco addiction". Inelastic means that people don't change their habits. Your previous comments seem to have skirted with the same contradiction, but I could be wrong.

Quoting Unit: There seems to be a contradiction in saying that the govt likes sin-taxes "because tobacco use etc is inelastic" and at the same time "because they help curb the tobacco addiction". Inelastic means that people don't change their habits. Your previous comments seem to have skirted with the same contradiction, but I could be wrong.

There does get to be a point where the idea of wishing people imbibed fewer unhealthy substances contradicts a desire to make money from taxing them, yes. However, I'd say that the inelastic demand curve is a recognition of reality, the talk about "potentially reducing consumption" is mostly a sop when selling an increase in "sin taxes," and if it should miraculously happen that people cut way down on, say, smoking cigarettes, we'll all be happy, saving money as a society on health costs, and we'll figure out some other place to get the money. In the meantime, to bring it back to where we were, I think pot should be legal, and I think we could make a lot of revenue from taxing it, and everyone except the bluenoses would be happy.

Quoting bjkeefe: I think pot should be legal, and I think we could make a lot of revenue from taxing it, and everyone except the bluenoses would be happy.

Screw taxing it. It should be a government owned monopoly, with all revenues going to public works. The citizens should be able to grow their own legally. That maximizes revenue for the public, while keeping prices low enough to prevent pot dealers from entering the market.

Quoting sugarkang: Screw taxing it. It should be a government owned monopoly, with all revenues going to public works. The citizens should be able to grow their own legally. That maximizes revenue for the public, while keeping prices low enough to prevent pot dealers from entering the market.

I'd rather handle it the way we handle alcohol -- let private businesses compete, and then just tax it. No muss, no fuss (a few McCain-owned distributorships aside, I mean). I also believe, as I have argued elsewhere in this thread, that you could tax it to the point where the current (black) market price is now without worry. The overwhelming majority of people would rather do business legally and at their convenience, and they're willing to pay something for that. I do agree that people should be allowed to grow some amount at home for their own consumption and to give to friends. However we handle home brewing right now probably ought to work.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'd rather handle it the way we handle alcohol -- let private businesses compete, and then just tax it. No muss, no fuss (a few McCain-owned distributorships aside, I mean).

I'm against this because once private businesses get involved, they will *motivate* people to get high. That is something that we should not socially promote. I'm a libertarian, but remember what comes with that: personal responsibility. Being a libertarian doesn't mean you promote debauchery. And since some people will always want to get high, let's do the least damage possible. I envision scoring pot from non descript gov't buildings. No advertisements or commercials anywhere in the country at all. I'm also in favor of putting heavy drug users out on a farm in the country where they're free to get high all the time and do not interact with the rest of society.

Quoting sugarkang: I'm against this because once private businesses get involved, they will *motivate* people to get high. That is something that we should not socially promote.

Do you feel the same way about alcohol ads? And what about ads for junk foods, fast cars, and other potentially hazardous indulgences?

I'm a libertarian, but remember what comes with that: personal responsibility.

You sound suspiciously nanny-state-ish to me. You want to regulate my behavior, instead of leaving it up to me to decide how best to live my life.

I'm also in favor of putting heavy drug users out on a farm in the country where they're free to get high all the time and do not interact with the rest of society.

Same comment, except now you sound less like a liberal run amok and more like a fascist. Truth be told, if it were up to me, I'd be happy to accept legal marijuana in return for no advertising. But I think it would be stupid to have the government as the sole dealer, in part because I suspect "libertarians" such as yourself would come up with the idea of making lists of people who come buy to score a bag.

Quoting bjkeefe: There does get to be a point where the idea of wishing people imbibed fewer unhealthy substances contradicts a desire to make money from taxing them, yes. However, I'd say that the inelastic demand curve is a recognition of reality, the talk about "potentially reducing consumption" is mostly a sop when selling an increase in "sin taxes," and if it should miraculously happen that people cut way down on, say, smoking cigarettes, we'll all be happy, saving money as a society on health costs, and we'll figure out some other place to get the money.

In the meantime, to bring it back to where we were, I think pot should be legal, and I think we could make a lot of revenue from taxing it, and everyone except the bluenoses would be happy.

Legalizing pot and then taxing it is a compromise that I could live with: much more humane than an all-out ban! So I'm with you here, but I don't buy all the other rationalizations for the tax part. In fact, this is the only hope we have for legalization in the future. Some commentators have pointed to the fact that Prohibition ended when government

Quoting bjkeefe: Do you feel the same way about alcohol ads? And what about ads for junk foods, fast cars, and other potentially hazardous indulgences?

Yes, I do. I should disclose I'm more like 50% libertarian, 30% social conservative, 20% liberal. Just because I don't agree with you 100% doesn't make me nanny state-ish. I'm saying legalize it, remember? That's WAY more libertarian than the actual status quo. As far as regulating your behavior, I think you're not looking at all the possibilities. If our actions have no consequences on others, then yes, there should be complete freedom. e.g., the right to commit suicide. The problem with the drug trade is that there isn't a way to not influence other people. And theoretically if everyone was a responsible human being, we wouldn't need regulations. That's clearly not the case.

Same comment, except now you sound less like a liberal run amok and more like a fascist.

I prefer authoritarian I guess it comes down to whether you subscribe to broken windows theory (which I do). Sometimes one person's liberty must be sacrificed for the sake of another's. Sometimes it IS a zero-sum game. I think you're also forgetting the context. Right now heavy drug users (heroin, crack, meth) go to jail. I'd put them out in the country on a

Quoting sugarkang: Just because I don't agree with you 100% doesn't make me nanny state-ish.

Full agreement with me wasn't my criterion. I said you didn't sound like a libertarian because you wanted to regulate how others behave in their own private lives. But as you have said elsewhere that you aren't really a libertarian, fine.

As far as regulating your behavior, I think you're not looking at all the possibilities. If our actions have no consequences on others, then yes, there should be complete freedom. e.g., the right to commit suicide. The problem with the drug trade is that there isn't a way to not influence other people.

I don't see why the same rules of behavior wouldn't cover any issues; e.g., operating under the influence, "drunk and disorderly" laws, etc., plus of course all the rest of the existing laws that encode how people may not mistreat each other. I would say about "the drug trade" that if the drug in question is legal, it's just another business; i.e., you'd be removing what we think of when we say "the drug trade." Second point: In some sense, trade of any good can be said to have ripple effects on others if you look

Quoting Unit: Legalizing pot and then taxing it is a compromise that I could live with: much more humane than an all-out ban! So I'm with you here, but I don't buy all the other rationalizations for the tax part.

I don't either, but that's the way they get sold by people who want to implement them. That's all I'm saying.

In fact, this is the only hope we have for legalization in the future. Some commentators have pointed to the fact that Prohibition ended when government found itself in the need of collecting more money from liquor.
Actually,Prohibition had been at all possible because of the introduction of the income tax. When the income tax had been optimized they had to go back to alcohol. Maybe one of these days they'll do the same with drugs,who knows....

Could be. I always think of a story I used to hear about a guy who worked in the California Department of Agriculture's offices. Every year, when listing the cash crops, he'd add the best guess for the revenue generated by the marijuana grown in the state. Invariably, it was first on the list. Could be an urban legend, but

sugarkang: Sorry if the way I ended my last sounded curt. I couldn't get the tone right. I just hit the wall.

Quoting bjkeefe: Second point: In some sense, trade of any good can be said to have ripple effects on others if you look at it hard enough. What I'm talking about is cleaning things up so that they're less bad than they are now -- no more crooked cops and judges, no more intimidation of same, no more gang violence, and so on. I am not imagining things will be perfect. Just better.

This is exactly why I want legalization as well. Including better conditions for inner cities, leading to more responsible citizenry, which leads to better perceptions of minorities, which lessens racism.

Oh, please. Like your version of Coventry has any chance either.

If you really believe that your position has no chance, then why argue it? I argue my position because I think it does have a chance, given time.

Basically, you're offering people a chance to do drugs if they agree to go to a prison camp.

Do you think the Betty Ford Clinic is a prison camp? I'm talking about treatment centers where people can shoot up if they like, or get better if they like. In any event, get the hell out of poor neighborhoods so that those who

Quoting bjkeefe: sugarkang:

Sorry if the way I ended my last sounded curt. I couldn't get the tone right. I just hit the wall.

Don't worry about it. I'm certainly guilty of it myself. Which means I owe an apology to Titstorm.

sugarkang: I said I was done with this, but just to answer a couple of your questions ...

If you really believe that your position has no chance, then why argue it? I argue my position because I think it does have a chance, given time.

Partly for the sake of intellectual exercise. Partly because I sometimes have hope that sanity and good sense will break out in this country.

Do you think the Betty Ford Clinic is a prison camp? I'm talking about treatment centers where people can shoot up if they like, or get better if they like.

This sounds different from the way you put it before. I'm all for treatment centers.

I woudn't round up everyone that is suspected of using drugs, i.e., recreational users. I have no problem with them. If they can exercise personal responsibility, what do I care if they wanna get high on weekends?

Glad to hear it.

I'm talking about chronic addicts. If all they wanna do is shoot up all day, then put them away where they can safely shoot up or clean up if they wish to do so. Wouldn't you agree that sending them to prison like we do now

Radly/David, Good discussion but it was for the most part centered on the lowest levels of the retail/user trade and dealt in urban legends as a result over overzealous police action and never focused on or offered any analysis of the bulk of the federal enforcement at the top of the food chain . For instance imbobilizing major drug cartels in the US and source countries. Sorry Walters wouldn't return your call but he is not involed in the loop on enforcement directed by the DEA or ICE/Coast Guard border interdictions. Maybe a simiular segment should be streamed involving panelists who know what they are talking about. I am a greats man myself. Oh and Jamesons is just fine with me.

If you haven't already read Anita Bartholomew's piece by following the sidebar link on the video page, it's a good one. Money quote, related to discussions above, via Andrew Sullivan:

As long as marijuana is illegal, we’ll still be directing billions to enforcement, prosecution and incarceration. And we still won’t realize the revenues that regulation and taxation can bring.

We could use those lost billions right now. Estimates of the combined savings from legalizing marijuana, and revenues from taxing it like alcohol or tobacco, range from $13.94 to $41.8 billion per year. That’s enough to pay for all or most of President-elect Obama’s proposed ten-year, $150 billion alternative energy investment. Or it could contribute roughly one-fifth to one-half of the $75 billion per year estimated cost of Obama’s proposal to extend health insurance to all.

A bit of a digression from the drug topic but: Any idea if the energy numbers in that quote are correct? If so, the proposed $15B per year to deal with long-term energy is pathetic. We've been paying some $100B per year for the (oil) war debacle. Considering the various budgets involved under the general "defense and security" heading, $15B is maybe 2% of what we are anually blowing at present that is alleged to be for our intertwined physical and economic security. Not to mention the trillion a year we are currently looking at to bail out those sectors of the economy that don't actually produce anything but exist as "facilitators". The election being over and since I feel like bitching tonight, yeah, less bad than McCain and I suppose I believe that it is change, but it sure isn't change to get excited about.

Quoting cragger: A bit of a digression from the drug topic but:

Any idea if the energy numbers in that quote are correct?

"$150 billion over the next ten years" is a familiar number. I agree with you that it sounds small, compared to other numbers that have been bandied about lately. It didn't sound so small to some when he first proposed it, IIRC, though. I also agree with you that compared to our military spending, it really seems pathetic. I have long thought that it would be a good thing if it was required that a fixed fraction of the DoD's budget come from gasoline taxes. Still, $15B/year is not nothing, and if it looks like it's working, maybe the private sector will be encouraged to add their own investments.

the war on drugs is good for: turning poor people into thieves, murders, and liars making lawyers rich and keeping decent people from purchasing products safely at a reasonable price! it is also good at supporting an over-bloated penal corporate system with a puritanical sado-masochistic corporate culture! under normal circumstances, when someone doesn't pay, you take them to court. when you can't do that, you shoot them!! this is street-law, fostered by prohibitions, street justice!! black markets have their black law! people are not just shooting one another for the fun of it! they are enforcing street-code! poor people do on street corners, what middle-class and rich folk, do behind closed doors! out-law caffeine, and soon people will be shooting one another over no-doze. the DEA will be arranging for meetings with juan valdez, in some dark alley somewhere, to sell bags of mountain grown colombian coffee beans! maybe the kennedy's could arrange elite home delivery service of gourmet blends! i am not sure if the price structures are any better than the robbery that is taking place at the pharmacy!!?? maybe the war on drugs should be at the pharmacy?? take a look at the crap that they are

legal or other-wise: most people abuse "uppers", so that they can abuse "downers", or
they abuse "downers", so that can abuse "uppers"! some people use "uppers" or "downers" outside of the abuse cycle! use is not abuse, contrary to popular opinion!!! imho!!! what is easily misunderstood (or esoteric) is frequently sold to the public as pabulum(or wars on this, that, and the other)!! the need to punish those who don't share our values, and then feel guilty for the punishment, is curious!?? the puritanical spirit prevails!!! i guess,it's too hard, to live, and let live!!! P.S. stimulation("up")and depression("down") of the central nervous system is the great mystery of "getting high", that our world is so excited about. alcohol("downer")is the big player in the scheme of stimulant abuse! if you can't balance your system through diet, exercise, etc., head for the medicine cabinet???? people claim to love modern medicine, yet hate DRUGS!! hmmmm!!!! the pot(no pun intended) is calling the kettle black!! GOD_DAMN all the PUSHERS!! and leave my nervous system alone!!

What a superb diavlog. Too bad Cluture11's reign has ended. Kudos to Radley for staying on point and always answering David's questions.